154 research outputs found

    The Relationship between Health Plan Performance Measures and Physician Network Overlap: Implications for Measuring Plan Quality

    Full text link
    To examine the extent to which health plan quality measures capture physician practice patterns rather than plan characteristics.We gathered and merged secondary data from the following four sources: a private firm that collected information on individual physicians and their health plan affiliations, The National Committee for Quality Assurance, InterStudy, and the Dartmouth Atlas.We constructed two measures of physician network overlap for all health plans in our sample and linked them to selected measures of plan performance. Two linear regression models were estimated to assess the relationship between the measures of physician network overlap and the plan performance measures.The results indicate that in the presence of a higher degree of provider network overlap, plan performance measures tend to converge to a lower level of quality.Standard health plan performance measures reflect physician practice patterns rather than plans' effort to improve quality. This implies that more provider-oriented measurement, such as would be possible with accountable care organizations or medical homes, may facilitate patient decision making and provide further incentives to improve performance.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79067/1/j.1475-6773.2010.01111.x.pd

    Validation of key behaviourally based mental health diagnoses in administrative data: suicide attempt, alcohol abuse, illicit drug abuse and tobacco use

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Observational research frequently uses administrative codes for mental health or substance use diagnoses and for important behaviours such as suicide attempts. We sought to validate codes (<it>International Classification of Diseases, 9<sup>th </sup>edition, clinical modification </it>diagnostic and E-codes) entered in Veterans Health Administration administrative data for patients with depression versus a gold standard of electronic medical record text ("chart notation").</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Three random samples of patients were selected, each stratified by geographic region, gender, and year of cohort entry, from a VHA depression treatment cohort from April 1, 1999 to September 30, 2004. The first sample was selected from patients who died by suicide, the second from patients who remained alive on the date of death of suicide cases, and the third from patients with a new start of a commonly used antidepressant medication. Four variables were assessed using administrative codes in the year prior to the index date: suicide attempt, alcohol abuse/dependence, drug abuse/dependence and tobacco use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Specificity was high (≥ 90%) for all four administrative codes, regardless of the sample. Sensitivity was ≤75% and was particularly low for suicide attempt (≤ 17%). Positive predictive values for alcohol dependence/abuse and tobacco use were high, but barely better than flipping a coin for illicit drug abuse/dependence. Sensitivity differed across the three samples, but was highest in the suicide death sample.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Administrative data-based diagnoses among VHA records have high specificity, but low sensitivity. The accuracy level varies by different diagnosis and by different patient subgroup.</p

    Hospital Performance Trends on National Quality Measures and the Association With Joint Commission Accreditation

    Get PDF
    BackgroundEvaluations of the impact of hospital accreditation have been previously hampered by the lack of nationally standardized data. One way to assess this impact is to compare accreditation status with other evidence-based measures of quality, such as the process measures now publicly reported by The Joint Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).ObjectivesTo examine the association between Joint Commission accreditation status and both absolute measures of, and trends in, hospital performance on publicly reported quality measures for common diseases.Design, setting, and patientsPerformance data for 2004 and 2008 from U.S. acute care and critical access hospitals were obtained using publicly available CMS Hospital Compare data augmented with Joint Commission performance data.MeasurementsChanges in hospital performance between 2004 and 2008, and percent of hospitals with 2008 performance exceeding 90% for 16 measures of quality-of-care and 4 summary scores.ResultsHospitals accredited by The Joint Commission tended to have better baseline performance in 2004 than non-accredited hospitals. Accredited hospitals had larger gains over time, and were significantly more likely to have high performance in 2008 on 13 out of 16 standardized clinical performance measures and all summary scores.ConclusionsWhile Joint Commission-accredited hospitals already outperformed non-accredited hospitals on publicly reported quality measures in the early days of public reporting, these differences became significantly more pronounced over 5 years of observation. Future research should examine whether accreditation actually promotes improved performance or is a marker for other hospital characteristics associated with such performance. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011;6:458-465. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine

    Methods to identify the target population: implications for prescribing quality indicators

    Get PDF
    Background: Information on prescribing quality is increasingly used by policy makers, insurance companies and health care providers. For reliable assessment of prescribing quality it is important to correctly identify the patients eligible for recommended treatment. Often either diagnostic codes or clinical measurements are used to identify such patients. We compared these two approaches regarding the outcome of the prescribing quality assessment and their ability to identify treated and undertreated patients. Methods: The approaches were compared using electronic health records for 3214 diabetes patients from 70 general practitioners. We selected three existing prescribing quality indicators (PQI) assessing different aspects of treatment in patients with hypertension or who were overweight. We compared population level prescribing quality scores and proportions of identified patients using definitions of hypertension or being overweight based on diagnostic codes, clinical measurements or both. Results: The prescribing quality score for prescribing any antihypertensive treatment was 93% (95% confidence interval 90-95%) using the diagnostic code-based approach, and 81% (78-83%) using the measurement-based approach. Patients receiving antihypertensive treatment had a better registration of their diagnosis compared to hypertensive patients in whom such treatment was not initiated. Scores on the other two PQI were similar for the different approaches, ranging from 64 to 66%. For all PQI, the clinical measurement -based approach identified higher proportions of both well treated and undertreated patients compared to the diagnostic code -based approach. Conclusions: The use of clinical measurements is recommended when PQI are used to identify undertreated patients. Using diagnostic codes or clinical measurement values has little impact on the outcomes of proportion-based PQI when both numerator and denominator are equally affected. In situations when a diagnosis is better registered for treated than untreated patients, as we observed for hypertension, the diagnostic code-based approach results in overestimation of provided treatment

    Quality improvement in small office settings: an examination of successful practices

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physicians in small to moderate primary care practices in the United States (U.S.) (<25 physicians) face unique challenges in implementing quality improvement (QI) initiatives, including limited resources, small staffs, and inadequate information technology systems 23,36. This qualitative study sought to identify and understand the characteristics and organizational cultures of physicians working in smaller practices who are actively engaged in measurement and quality improvement initiatives.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We undertook a qualitative study, based on semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted with practices (N = 39) that used performance data to drive quality improvement activities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Physicians indicated that benefits to performing measurement and QI included greater practice efficiency, patient and staff retention, and higher staff and clinician satisfaction with practice. Internal facilitators included the designation of a practice champion, cooperation of other physicians and staff, and the involvement of practice leaders. Time constraints, cost of activities, problems with information management and or technology, lack of motivated staff, and a lack of financial incentives were commonly reported as barriers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings shed light on how physicians engage in quality improvement activities, and may help raise awareness of and aid in the implementation of future initiatives in small practices more generally.</p

    Access to electronic health records by care setting and provider type: perceptions of cancer care providers in Ontario, Canada

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of electronic health records (EHRs) to support the organization and delivery of healthcare is evolving rapidly. However, little is known regarding potential variation in access to EHRs by provider type or care setting. This paper reports on observed variation in the perceptions of access to EHRs by a wide range of cancer care providers covering diverse cancer care settings in Ontario, Canada.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Perspectives were sought regarding EHR access and health record completeness for cancer patients as part of an internet survey of 5663 cancer care providers and administrators in Ontario. Data were analyzed using a multilevel logistic regression model. Provider type, location of work, and access to computer or internet were included as covariates in the model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 1997 of 5663 (35%) valid responses were collected. Focusing on data from cancer care providers (N = 1247), significant variation in EHR access and health record completeness was observed between provider types, location of work, and level of computer access. Providers who worked in community hospitals were half as likely as those who worked in teaching hospitals to have access to their patients' EHRs (OR 0.45 95% CI: 0.24–0.85, p < 0.05) and were six times less likely to have access to other organizations' EHRs (OR 0.15 95% CI: 0.02–1.00, p < 0.05). Compared to surgeons, nurses (OR 3.47 95% CI: 1.80–6.68, p < 0.05), radiation therapists/physicists (OR 7.86 95% CI: 2.54–25.34, p < 0.05), and other clinicians (OR 4.92 95% CI: 2.15–11.27, p < 0.05) were more likely to report good access to their organization's EHRs.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Variability in access across different provider groups, organization types, and geographic locations illustrates the fragmented nature of EHR adoption in the cancer system. Along with focusing on technological aspects of EHR adoption within organizations, it is essential that there is cross-organizational and cross-provider access to EHRs to ensure patient continuity of care, system efficiency, and high quality care.</p

    An effectiveness analysis of healthcare systems using a systems theoretic approach

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of accreditation and quality measurement and reporting to improve healthcare quality and patient safety has been widespread across many countries. A review of the literature reveals no association between the accreditation system and the quality measurement and reporting systems, even when hospital compliance with these systems is satisfactory. Improvement of health care outcomes needs to be based on an appreciation of the whole system that contributes to those outcomes. The research literature currently lacks an appropriate analysis and is fragmented among activities. This paper aims to propose an integrated research model of these two systems and to demonstrate the usefulness of the resulting model for strategic research planning.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>To achieve these aims, a systematic integration of the healthcare accreditation and quality measurement/reporting systems is structured hierarchically. A holistic systems relationship model of the administration segment is developed to act as an investigation framework. A literature-based empirical study is used to validate the proposed relationships derived from the model. Australian experiences are used as evidence for the system effectiveness analysis and design base for an adaptive-control study proposal to show the usefulness of the system model for guiding strategic research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three basic relationships were revealed and validated from the research literature. The systemic weaknesses of the accreditation system and quality measurement/reporting system from a system flow perspective were examined. The approach provides a system thinking structure to assist the design of quality improvement strategies. The proposed model discovers a fourth implicit relationship, a feedback between quality performance reporting components and choice of accreditation components that is likely to play an important role in health care outcomes. An example involving accreditation surveyors is developed that provides a systematic search for improving the impact of accreditation on quality of care and hence on the accreditation/performance correlation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is clear value in developing a theoretical systems approach to achieving quality in health care. The introduction of the systematic surveyor-based search for improvements creates an adaptive-control system to optimize health care quality. It is hoped that these outcomes will stimulate further research in the development of strategic planning using systems theoretic approach for the improvement of quality in health care.</p
    corecore