PubMed · 11116489
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
2000. Competency assessments: handling them effectively.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11116489/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: Little data are available to assess the efforts of managed care organizations to improve quality of care. This analysis assessed differences in performance rates between organizations with and without quality improvement activities. METHODS: We reviewed 399 self-reported quality improvement activities submitted by organizations seeking accreditation by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Processes or outcomes assessed in quality improvement activities were linked to corresponding measures in the effectiveness-of-care database of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Performance rates for managed care organizations with and without quality improvement activities were then compared. RESULTS: The cross-sectional analysis included 79 quality improvement activities from 50 organizations, covering 12 effectiveness-of-care categories. Each activity had a matching performance score in the database. Financial incentives for providers were associated with substantially higher performance rates in organizations employing this type of intervention. Eight effectiveness-of-care categories had at least four organizations reporting specific quality improvement activities for the care category of interest; statistically significant improvements were observed for follow-up visits for patients after hospitalization for mental illness, checkups after delivery, and screening for cervical cancer. CONCLUSION: Based on objective and audited information, the estimated effects of self-reported quality improvement activities were often small and inconsistent. In some instances, the observed effect was contrary to the expected direction. Limitations of the available dataset and the caveats of a cross-sectional study design precluded a number of analytical options. Longer-term, prospective studies are needed to explore further the relation between quality improvement activities and objective measures of clinical performance.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The oversight of research involving human participants is widely believed to be inadequate. The U.S. Congress, national commissions, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine, numerous professional societies, and others are proposing remedies based on the assumption that the main problems are researchers' conflict of interest, lack of institutional review board (IRB) resources, and the volume and complexity of clinical research. Developing appropriate reform proposals requires carefully delineating the problems of the current system to know what reforms are needed. To stimulate a more informed and meaningful debate, we delineate 15 current problems into 3 broad categories. First, structural problems encompass 8 specific problems related to the way the research oversight system is organized. Second, procedural problems constitute 5 specific problems related to the operations of IRB review. Finally, performance assessment problems include 2 problems related to absence of systematic assessment of the outcomes of the oversight system. We critically assess proposed reforms, such as accreditation and central IRBs, according to how well they address these 15 problems. None of the reforms addresses all 15 problems. Indeed, most focus on the procedural problems, failing to address either the structure or the performance assessment problems. Finally, on the basis of the delineation of problems, we outline components of a more effective reform proposal, including bringing all research under federal oversight, a permanent advisory committee to address recurrent ethical issues in clinical research, mandatory single-time review for multicenter research protocols, additional financial support for IRB functions, and a standardized system for collecting and disseminating data on both adverse events and the performance assessment of IRBs.