PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Sennett

Publications and source records attributed to C Sennett.

26 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1987

Medicare elective surgery outcomes and state prospective reimbursement programs.

This article examines the relationship between the introduction of State prospective reimbursement (PR) programs and mortality rates for elective surgery. We study 15 such programs using a sample of about 40 percent of U.S. hospitals. We examine mortality data for 1974 to 1983 for these hospitals, selecting a 20-percent sample of all Medicare admissions for eight elective procedures. Indirect standardization (age, sex, procedure) was used to define mortality outcomes, and regression procedures were used to estimate PR effects that controlled for hospital, community, and other regulatory influences. Introduction of PR is found to be occasionally and inconsistently associated with increases in relative mortality.

Data Collection↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Enhancing performance measurement: NCQA's road map for a health information framework. National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Measuring the quality of health care delivery is one of the most critical challenges facing US health care. Performance measurement can be used to track the quality of care that health plans and medical groups deliver, but effective performance measurement requires timely access to detailed and accurate data. In 1996, the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) commissioned a report to learn what actions would improve health plans' capacity to electronically report performance data for the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Tracking clinical performance will require not just clinical data stored in information systems, but an integrated health information framework. Seven features are essential to this framework: (1) it specifies data elements; (2) it establishes linkage capability among data elements and records; (3) it standardizes the element definitions; (4) it is automated to the greatest possible extent; (5) it specifies procedures for continually assessing data quality; (6) it maintains strict controls for protecting security and confidentiality of the data; and (7) it specifies protocols for sharing data across institutions under appropriate and well-defined circumstances. Health plans should anticipate the use of computerized patient records and prepare their data management for an information framework by (1) expanding and improving the capture and use of currently available data; (2) creating an environment that rewards the automation of data; (3) improving the quality of currently automated data; (4) implementing national standards; (5) improving clinical data management practices; (6) establishing a clear commitment to protecting the confidentiality of enrollee information; and (7) careful capital planning. Health care purchasers can provide the impetus for implementing the information framework if they demand detailed, accurate data on the quality of care.

Forms and Records Control↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Executive roundtable II. Talking about quality.

In the last issue of Healthcare Executive, we introduced the first in a two-part series on quality in healthcare. The series, which is predicated on a five-hour roundtable discussion among eight healthcare leaders, was moderated by Thomas C. Dolan, Ph.D., FACHE, CAE, ACHE's president and chief executive officer, and jointly sponsored by ACHE and the Bayer Quality Network, an educational forum for sharing innovative and effective continuous quality improvement methods with healthcare executives. In Part I, participants spoke about current issues as they relate to quality. They discussed the reliability of existing quality data and expressed a need for more practical indicators and measurement systems. The consumer mindset was discussed, as leaders debated the value of customer satisfaction surveys and ways to create more realistic consumer expectations. In terms of employers and third parties, participants suggested tailoring quality information and presenting it in a simplified fashion. Finally, leaders emphasized the need for better performance information, as well as the use of outcomes data for both educational and quality improvement purposes. In Part II, the dialogue remains compelling. Participants cover new ground as they talk about the role of accreditors in regulating quality, of governance teams and senior management in creating an organizational culture to support quality, and of physicians in attracting both business partners and patients based on quality. Following is the second in our two-part series.

Accreditation↗