Payment for performance (P4P): any future in Italy?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay for Performance (P4P) programs, based on provision of financial incentives for service quality, have been widely adopted to enhance quality of care and to promote a more efficient use of health care resources whilst improving patient outcomes. In Italy, as in other countries, the growing concern over the quality of health services provided and the scarcity of resources would make P4P programs a useful means of improving their performance. The aim of this paper is to evaluate whether it is possible to implement P4P programs in the Lombardy Region, in Italy, based on the existing data set.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirteen quality measures were identified regarding four clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), ischemic stroke and hip and knee replacement) on the basis of an international literature review. Data was collected using the database of three institutions, which included hospital discharge records (Scheda di Dimissione ospedaliera-SDO-) and letters of discharge. The study population was identified using both the Principal ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes and the discharge date. A Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program was used for the text analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>It was possible to calculate almost all the parameters pertaining to the three hospitals as all the data required was available with the exception of inpatient mortality in two hospitals and smoking cessation advice/counseling in one hospital.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>On the ground of this analysis, we believe that it is possible to implement a P4P program in the Lombardy Region. However, for this program to be initiated, all necessary data must be available in electronic format and uniformly collected. Moreover, several other factors must be assessed: which clinical conditions should be included, the threshold for each quality parameter, the amount of financial incentives offered and how they will be provided.</p

Sins of Omission

Little is known about the relative incidence of serious errors of omission versus errors of commission. Objective : To identify the most common substantive medical errors identified by medical record review. Design : Retrospective cohort study. Setting : Twelve Veterans Affairs health care systems in 2 regions. Participants : Stratified random sample of 621 patients receiving care over a 2-year period. Main Outcome Measure : Classification of reported quality problems. Methods : Trained physicians reviewed the full inpatient and outpatient record and described quality problems, which were then classified as errors of omission versus commission. Results : Eighty-two percent of patients had at least 1 error reported over a 13-month period. The average number of errors reported per case was 4.7 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.4, 5.0). Overall, 95.7% (95% CI: 94.9%, 96.4%) of errors were identified as being problems with underuse. Inadequate care for people with chronic illnesses was particularly common. Among errors of omission, obtaining insufficient information from histories and physicals (25.3%), inadequacies in diagnostic testing (33.9%), and patients not receiving needed medications (20.7%) were all common. Out of the 2,917 errors identified, only 27 were rated as being highly serious, and 26 (96%) of these were errors of omission. Conclusions : While preventing iatrogenic injury resulting from medical errors is a critically important part of quality improvement, we found that the overwhelming majority of substantive medical errors identifiable from the medical record were related to people getting too little medical care, especially for those with chronic medical conditions.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74567/1/j.1525-1497.2005.0152.x.pd

It is time to talk about people: a human-centered healthcare system

Examining vulnerabilities within our current healthcare system we propose borrowing two tools from the fields of engineering and design: a) Reason's system approach [1] and b) User-centered design [2,3]. Both approaches are human-centered in that they consider common patterns of human behavior when analyzing systems to identify problems and generate solutions. This paper examines these two human-centered approaches in the context of healthcare. We argue that maintaining a human-centered orientation in clinical care, research, training, and governance is critical to the evolution of an effective and sustainable healthcare system

Transparency in Health Care: Disclosing Adverse Events to the Public

The topic of transparency has received increasing academic interest in recent years. Transparency can be interpreted as conducting affairs in the open, being subject to public scrutiny, or admitting to problems when they arise. This chapter analyses transparency in disclosing adverse events to the public in Norway. We use the widely publicized Daniel case to show the communication between the regulator and the public, discussing key elements of transparency in the healthcare setting, including the role of media. The Daniel case describes an accidental tonsillectomy characterized by cover-up, failure of the initial regulatory and hospital follow-up, coming to a head when media shone a spotlight on the case. The media coverage caused social amplification of the risk communication resulting in regulatory follow-up having to apply new forms of transparency strategies to rebuild trust in the public. By using the Daniel case as emblematic of Norwegian risk communication strategies in health care, improvements should be made along the lines of direct and adequate information exchange according to patient rights, and efforts to foster open and transparent regulatory and organizational cultures to ensure public trust.publishedVersio