SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Quality assessment/quality management and quality improvement are two highly visible areas that are helping to change the healthcare system in the 1990s. In this article, the authors describe how quality improvement can enhance the current quality assessment/quality management program in a hospital.
Quality improvement tools that integrate clinical and financial data provide a statistical basis for quality planning and cost containment. Clinical path development results in an operational guideline for optimizing quality and efficiency. Implementation provides the means for delivering value. This article describes a step-by-step process in which quality improvement tools were used to develop a pediatric femur fracture clinical path at the author's hospital.
CONTEXT: Efforts to improve quality of care in the cardiac surgery field have focused on reducing the risk-adjusted mortality associated with common surgical procedures, such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, the best methodological approach to improvement is under debate. OBJECTIVE: To test an intervention to improve performance of CABG surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quality improvement project based on baseline (July 1, 1995-June 30, 1996) and follow-up (July 1-December 31, 1998) performance measurements from medical record review for all 20 Alabama hospitals that provided CABG surgery. PATIENTS: Medicare patients discharged after CABG surgery in Alabama (n = 5784), a comparison state (n = 3214), and a national sample (n = 3758). INTERVENTION: Confidential hospital-specific performance feedback and assistance with multimodal improvement interventions, including the option to share relevant experience with peers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Duration of intubation, reintubation rate, aspirin therapy at discharge, use of the internal mammary artery (IMA), hospital readmission rate, and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Proportion of extubation within 6 hours increased from 9% to 41% in Alabama, decreased from 40% to 39% in the comparison state, and increased from 12% to 25% in the national sample. Use of IMA increased from 73% to 84%, 48% to 55%, and 74% to 81%, respectively, in the 3 samples, but aspirin use increased only in Alabama (from 88% to 92%). The amount of improvement in all 3 of these process measures was greater in Alabama than in the other samples (IMA use for Alabama vs comparison state was P =.001 and for Alabama vs national sample, P =.02; and P<.001 for all other comparisons). Risk-adjusted mortality decreased in Alabama (4.9% to 2.9%), but this decrease was not statistically significantly different from mortality changes in the other groups (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.07 vs national sample). CONCLUSION: Confidential peer-based regional performance feedback and process-oriented analysis of shared experience are associated with some improvement in quality of care for patients who underwent CABG surgery.
BACKGROUND: This paper describes a collaborative Medicare claims data linkage and sharing effort between the Baylor Health Care System (BHCS) and Texas Medical Foundation (TMF, the Texas Quality Improvement Organization) designed to assess the effect of three quality improvement interventions on care delivered to elderly patients with diabetes. The randomized controlled trial is being conducted among a network of primary care physician practices owned by BHCS and focuses on measures of care process and outcome. METHODS: Cohort definition and baseline measurement took place between January 1 and December 31, 2000. BHCS administrative data and TMF-supplied Medicare enrollment data were used to define the January 1, 2001 prevalence cohort of Medicare diabetic beneficiaries meeting study inclusion criteria. A total of 22 practices (with 92 physicians and 2,158 patients) were randomized to one of three interventions, each of which involved performance measurement feedback on three claims-based measures of care process. Physician profiles, generated by TMF using Medicare utilization files, were reported to study physicians via academic detailing sessions with a BHCS physician educator. RESULTS: The January 1 - December 31, 2000 baseline Medicare claims for the January 1, 2001 prevalence cohort were provided to HTPN by TMF in October 2001, representing a ten-month lag in the ability of Quality Improvement Organizations to provide Part B data relative to a specific episode of care time frame. Overall baseline rates for the claims-based process measures were: annual HbA1c testing (86.1%), annual eye examination (60.8%), and annual lipid profile (72.5%). As anticipated, medical-record based rates of annual eye examination were significantly underrepresented. Agreement between claims-based and medical record-based measures was very close for annual HbA1c and annual lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Medicare claims data, through collaboration with a QIO, can help health care providers overcome a significant barrier associated with quality improvement initiatives. Limitations associated with the use of Medicare claims can impact implementation of intervention strategies, but do not prevent them from being a practical tool for improving care.
BACKGROUND: Implementing clinical practice guidelines to change patient outcomes presents a challenge. Studies of single interventions focused on changing provider behavior demonstrate modest effects, suggesting that effective guideline implementation requires a multifaceted approach. Traditional biomedical research designs are not well suited to evaluating systems interventions. OBJECTIVES: RAND and the Army Medical Department collaborated to develop and evaluate a system for implementing guidelines and documenting their effects on patient care. RESEARCH DESIGN: The evaluation design blended quality improvement, case study, and epidemiologic methods. A formative evaluation of implementation process and an outcome evaluation of patient impact were combined. SUBJECTS: Guidelines were implemented in 3 successive demonstrations targeting low back pain, asthma, and diabetes. This paper reports on the first wave of 4 facilities implementing a low back pain guideline. METHODS: Organizational climate and culture, motivation, leadership commitment, and resources were assessed. Selected indicators of processes and outcomes of care were compared before, during, and after guideline implementation at the demonstration facilities and at comparison facilities. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for guideline effects on patient care. RESULTS: Process evaluation documented varied approaches to quality improvement across sites. Outcome evaluation revealed a significant downward trend in the percentage of acute low back pain patients referred to physical therapy or chiropractic care (10.7% to 7.2%) at demonstration sites and no such trend at control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest the power of this design to stimulate improvements in guideline implementation while retaining the power to evaluate rigorously effects on patient care.
Assessing the impact of clinically relevant quality improvement activities (QIA) is important to managed care organizations; yet, turnover in enrollment can reduce the data available for analyses, thus decreasing the chance that a difference post-QIA will be detected. The Combined Quality Improvement Ratio (CQuIR) uses matching of patients into pairs pre- and post-QIA to systematically and validly increase the data included in the analysis for evaluation of the QIA. Using a paired cohort study design, 456 pairs of patients with diabetes were identified using the Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) specifications. Patients having retinal examinations were identified pre- and post-QIA. The change in retinal examination rates was analyzed and results compared using repeated pairs (RP), matched pairs (MP), and combined pairs (CP). The CQuIR methodology (which uses CP = RP + MP) resulted in an increase in sample size (n = 456 [CP] versus n = 156 [RP] and n = 300 [MP]) and consequently an increase in power (0.92 [CP] versus 0.38 [RP] and 0.82 [MP]) and a decrease in the confidence interval range (0.97 [CP] versus 2.06 [RP] and 1.14 [MP]). The CQuIR uses a statistically valid approach to increase the data available for the evaluation of QIAs.
Aurora Healthcare, an integrated healthcare delivery system, wanted to use interhospital collaboration to improve quality. An opportunity for improvement at five Aurora hospitals was identified: Only 71% of patients received timely preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. A Users Group approach was proposed to foster collaboration among the hospitals in a quality improvement (QI) effort. Although these hospitals differed in size, volume of cases, medical staffs, and antibiotic-delivery processes, they had common objectives and, many times, common barriers to the timely delivery of antibiotics. A Users Group approach to this QI initiative resulted in an 18% improvement in the number of patients who received timely administration of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (p < 0.001). This article describes the Users Group approach to QI at Aurora Healthcare in southeastern Wisconsin.
Improving the quality of health care is a central challenge for America's health care system. The mission of the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program is to promote the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of ESRD patient care and program administration. The program provides an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the use of information to help clinicians analyze and improve the care they deliver to patients in an ambulatory setting. This is possible because the program has established regional surveillance systems, called ESRD Networks, that gather information on the occurrence and outcomes of treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD. The Health Care Financing Administration, which is responsible for the administration of the program, and the renal community have worked together since 1990 to identify ways of incorporating new methods of quality improvement into the program. These methods include statistical evaluation of the processes and outcomes of care in dialysis populations; communicating recommended practices with clinical guidelines and algorithms; regional peer review and feedback (ie, technical assistance and/or collaborations for quality improvement); interventions that focus on the provision of assistance for quality improvement efforts; continuing collection and active feedback of data to providers; and a commitment to continue to evaluate and revise quality improvement activities to reflect lessons learned and newly identified needs. These ideas have been included in the 1994-1997 scope of work for the ESRD Networks and is called the ESRD Health Care Quality Improvement Program (HCQIP). This article describes the background for the ESRD HCQIP and the program's elements.
Continuous quality improvement focuses on the customer and, therefore, requires attention to customers' feedback as a vital input. Customers' feedback in general hospitals includes utilization statistics of various services, patient satisfaction surveys and patients' complaints. The role of complaint data as a management tool, and particularly as applied to quality improvement, has received little attention in the literature. As a quality control tool, complaints are investigated on the individual, unit and organizational levels. Repeated complaints about the same units, procedures or individuals, are especially important for quality review. The role of the hospital administration is to draw on the human, technological and procedural resources at its disposal, along a solution time interval (immediate, short and long term), in designing its policy for quality improvement. Presents three examples of policy changes. The aggregate of complaint data serves, in addition, for follow-up of the effect of changes introduced by policy decisions.
To identify issues for quality improvement and monitoring, an organization first articulates its service mission and objectives. The organization uses internal measurements and self-examination with external accountability and benchmarks to select a manageable number of projects for study. Supported by collected evidence, published data, and broad-based approval, projects focus on the process or outcomes of care, frequency of services, or patient populations. An accountable leader selects team members from the affected disciplines, who review evidence, agree on what and how to measure, determine implementation strategies, and develop an evaluation plan. The team meets established targets to track the project's progress and shares results with other teams. Providence Health System (PHS) his integrated its continuum of care through quality study groups (e.g., CORE) and improved communication systems. The Guideline Evaluation and Redesign (GEAR) projects compare PHS performance against outside standards, studying eight patient conditions (e.g., geriatric depression, hysterectomy) to decrease hospital days without compromising care. Each team is encouraged to develop guidelines for admission, discharge, and hospital care in their specialty areas. These projects are balanced between surgical and nonsurgical conditions and across clinical programs to engage different staffs. The PHS Population Health Improvement (PHI) teams used feasibility studies of eight patient populations to identify ways to improve quality of care based on internal and external evidence. The high-risk pregnancy team has redesigned staffing and implemented case management, and the Medicare and Medicaid projects have developed risk screens for new patient members.
PURPOSE: There has been growing concern about whether and when quality improvement activities require Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and informed consent. We sought to determine whether quality officers, IRB chairs, and journal editors share similar views about the role of IRB review and informed consent in quality improvement. METHODS: A survey consisting of six quality improvement scenarios detailing the development, implementation, and evaluation of a clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction was mailed to all medical directors of quality and IRB chairpersons at hospitals with at least 400 beds that are members of the Council of Teaching Hospitals of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The same survey was mailed to the editors of all U.S. medical journals that appear in Abridged Index Medicus. RESULTS: Quality officers were less likely than IRB chairs to believe that IRB review was required for all but one of the scenarios. When a clinical practice guideline developed by a national specialty society was implemented locally and its effects evaluated by chart review and telephone calls to patients, 47% (44/94) of IRB chairs, 66% (25/38) of journal editors, but only 20% (20/100) of quality officers believed the activity should be subjected to IRB review. Among those who thought that IRB review was required, there were similar but less striking differences in the perceived need for informed consent. Agreement between quality officers and IRB chairs within the same institution was poor, ranging from 44% to 52% for three of the six scenarios. CONCLUSION: In light of the pressing need to improve quality while protecting the rights of patients, efforts should be supported to clarify the role of the IRB in quality improvement activities.
Quality improvement is often seen as a time-consuming and cumbersome process with high "people" overhead as employees are pulled from their regular duties to attend meetings. As a result, there has been a trend toward tackling smaller, well defined problems with quickly achievable results. The E-mail approach used in this instance offers an approach that may bridge this gap. It allows a large group of people to participate in a complex project without the need for structured meetings spread out over a long period of time. The result, a blend of the strong points of quality improvement (inclusive, using the wisdom of a group of people) with a speedy, low overhead process, seems to address the concerns that have slowed the acceptance of the quality improvement process in many organizations thus far.
BACKGROUND: Quality improvement of organizational aspects in general practice is receiving increasing attention. In particular, the impact of effective organization on preventative care has been recognized. Organizational assessments are typically used as part of professionally led accreditation schemes where there is a tension between externally led quality assurance and internally led quality improvement. The aim of this article is to inform the debate by reviewing the international-peer-reviewed literature on organizational assessments used in general practice settings. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: The literature was searched for articles relating to organizational assessment. Titles and abstracts were examined by two independent reviewers and relevant articles obtained. Bibliographies were examined for follow-up references. Data were extracted on the development and use of assessment methods. RESULTS: Thirteen papers describing five organizational assessment instruments were included for detailed appraisal. CONCLUSION: This review discovered a developing field containing different approaches to the measurement of organizational aspects of general practice. Whilst professionally led accreditation is well-developed and dependent on externally led quality assurance, approaches to internally led quality improvement are less well-developed. There is a need for organizational assessment tools designed for the purpose of stimulating internal development.
A survey is an effective method for evaluating quality of care and generating cost-effective ideas for quality improvement. This article describes a survey of 138 patients and their families to evaluate the quality of care provided by a regional lithotripsy program. Although patients and their families generally gave high ratings to the care they received, areas for improvement were documented. The results were ultimately used to support change in nursing practice and care of patients and their families. The survey process described incorporates principles of research, quality assurance, and quality improvement.
Continuous quality improvement (CQI) can be envisaged as a circular process of goal-setting, followed by external and internal evaluations resulting in improvements that can serve as goals for a next cycle. The need for CQI is apparent, because of public accountability, maintaining European standards and the improvement of dental education. Many examples are known where recommendations from both external and internal evaluation are used for the improvement of dental education. Unfortunately, the implementation of the recommendations is inconsistent, rarely systematic and usually not transparent. This section agreed that it is essential to apply CQI in a structured, systematic and transparent way if we are to improve and maintain the quality of dental education. A model is proposed which includes three aspects: a) the process of CQI; b) the subjects to which CQI should be applied; and c) the management tools to govern CQI. It is stressed, that CQI is a process that can be applied in any dental school irrespective of curriculum or educational approach within the relevant context of the country or the region. The approach needs to recognize the complexity and the need to balance a quality improvement with accountability. A CQI system is also constrained in any organization by the attitudes and values of the staff. Inevitably there has to be a wide range in the application of CQI. Nevertheless, an agreed model on CQI might enhance convergence towards higher standards of dental education. The process of CQI can be supported by developments in information and communication technology (ICT): collection of data, identifying the steps in CQI, formats of reports, etc. The section was set, as one of its tasks, to advise on the development of a network based on a number of case studies on the application of CQI in dental education.
Case management plans are viable tools currently used to control healthcare cost and improve quality. The authors present a quality improvement-case management framework to guide nursing and hospital administrators in the development of these plans and to answer any questions they might raise while struggling through the process.
BACKGROUND: Many hospitals lack the infrastructure required to treat patients with acute stroke. The Brain Attack Coalition (BAC) published guidelines for the establishment of primary stroke centers. OBJECTIVE: To determine if stroke center designation and selective triage of acute stroke patients improve quality of care. METHODS: Baseline chart abstraction was performed on all stroke patients admitted to 32 hospitals serving Brooklyn and Queens, NY, from March to May 2002. Hospitals were invited to meet BAC guideline-based criteria. Adherence was verified by on-site visits. After designation, acute stroke patients were selectively triaged. Remeasurement data were collected from August to October 2003. RESULTS: The authors abstracted 1,598 charts at baseline and 1,442 charts at remeasurement. From baseline to remeasurement, median times decreased for door to physician contact (25 vs 15 minutes, p = 0.001), CT performance for potential tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) candidates (68 vs 32 minutes, p < 0.001), and t-PA administration (109 vs 98 minutes (p = NS). IV t-PA utilization increased from 2.4 to 5.2% (p < 0.005), select t-PA protocol violations decreased from 11.1 to 7.9% (p = NS), and the stroke unit admission rate increased from 16 to 39% (p < 0.001). In stroke centers (n = 14) vs nondesignated hospitals (n = 18), there were shorter median times from door to physician contact (10 vs 25 minutes, p < 0.001), CT performance for potential t-PA candidates (31 vs 40 minutes, p = NS), and t-PA administration (95 vs 115 minutes, p < 0.05). Stroke centers, compared with nondesignated centers, admitted acute stroke patients to stroke units more often (55.9 vs 10.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Stroke center designation and selective triage of acute stroke patients improved the quality of care, including access to timely thrombolytic therapy and stroke units.
Many quality improvement interventions such as educational programmes, hospital quality strategies, and quality evaluation systems have not been evaluated. The aim of this paper is to encourage research into these "quality improvement processes" by presenting suitable designs and methods, and by describing research approaches which are less familiar in healthcare. The paper proposes that the choice of research design depends on the level and complexity of the intervention. Theory-building approaches are more suitable than experimental theory testing approaches for evaluating higher-level complex interventions and for understanding critical context factors. Collaborative action evaluation studies can provide useful information for decision makers--an examples is given. "User focused" research can provide knowledge for developing more effective quality intervention processes and for making better decisions about their use and implementation.