Dataset Information

Quality improvement implementation and hospital performance on quality indicators.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the association between the scope of quality improvement (QI) implementation in hospitals and hospital performance on selected indicators of clinical quality.

Data sources

Secondary data from 1997 mailed survey of hospital QI practices, Medicare Inpatient Database, American Hospital Association's Annual Survey of Hospitals, the Bureau of Health Professions' Area Resource File, and two proprietary data sets compiled by Solucient Inc. containing data on managed care penetration and hospital financial performance.

Study design

Cross-sectional study of 1,784 community hospitals to assess relationship between QI implementation approach and six hospital-level quality indicators. DATA COLLECTION/ABSTRACTION METHODS: Two-stage instrumental variables estimation in which predicted values (instruments) of four QI scope variables and control (exogenous) variables used to estimate hospital-level quality indicators.

Principal findings

Involvement by multiple hospital units in QI effort is associated with worse values on hospital-level quality indicators. Percentage of hospital staff and percentage of senior managers participating in formally organized QI teams are associated with better values on quality indicators. Percentage of physicians participating in QI teams is not associated with better values on the hospital-level quality indicators studied.

Conclusions

Results supported the proposition that the scope of QI implementation in hospitals is significantly associated with hospital-level quality indicators. However, the direction of the association varied across different measures of QI implementation scope.

SUBMITTER: Weiner BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1702526 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality improvement implementation and hospital performance on quality indicators.

Weiner Bryan J BJ Alexander Jeffrey A JA Shortell Stephen M SM Baker Laurence C LC Becker Mark M Geppert Jeffrey J JJ

Health services research 20060401 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the association between the scope of quality improvement (QI) implementation in hospitals and hospital performance on selected indicators of clinical quality.<h4>Data sources</h4>Secondary data from 1997 mailed survey of hospital QI practices, Medicare Inpatient Database, American Hospital Association's Annual Survey of Hospitals, the Bureau of Health Professions' Area Resource File, and two proprietary data sets compiled by Solucient Inc. containing data on managed ...[more]

PMID: 16584451

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPay-for-performance (P4P) models are intended to promote quality of care in both hospitals and primary care settings. They are considered as a means of changing medical practices, particularly in primary care.ObjectivesThe first objective of this study was to assess how performance indicators changed over time, measured through "Remuneration on Public Health Objectives" (ROSP) scores, between 2017 and 2020 in a large French region (Grand Est region), and to compare this evolution in the rural vs. urban areas of the region. The second objective was to focus on the area with the least improvement in ROSP scores and to investigate whether the scores and the available sociodemographic characteristics of the area were associated.MethodsFirst, we measured the evolution over time of P4P indicators (i.e., ROSP scores) obtained from the regional health insurance system, for GP practices in the Grand Est region between 2017 and 2020. We then compared the scores between the Aube Department and the rest of the region (urban areas). To address the second objective, we focused on the area found to have the least improvement in indicators to investigate whether there was a relationship between ROSP score and sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsMore than 40,000 scores were collected. We observed an overall improvement in scores over the study period. The urban area (Grand Est region minus the Aube) scored better than the rural area (Aube) for chronic disease management [median 0.91 (0.84-0.95) vs. 0.90(0.79-0.94), p < 0.001] and prevention [median 0.36 (0.22-0.45) vs. 0.33 (0.17-0.43), p < 0.001], but not for efficiency, where the rural area (Aube) performed better [median 0.67(0.56-0.74) vs. 0.69 (0.57-0.75 in the rest of the Grand Est region, p = 0.004]. In the rural area, we found no significant association between ROSP scores and sociodemographic characteristics, except for extreme rurality in some sub-areas.ConclusionsAt the regional level, the overall improvement in scores observed between 2017 and 2020 suggests that the implementation of ROSP indicators have improved the quality of care, particularly in urban areas. These results also suggest that efforts should be focused on rural areas, which already had the lowest scores at the start of the P4P program.

Project description:BackgroundThe evaluation of quality of care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is critical for advancing patient outcomes but is not currently part of routine care across all centers in Canada. The study objective is to review the current landscape of JIA quality measures and use expert panel consensus to define key performance indicators (KPIs) that are important and feasible to collect for routine monitoring in JIA care in Canada.MethodsThirty-seven candidate KPIs identified from a systematic review were reviewed for inclusion by a working group including 3 pediatric rheumatologists. A shortlist of 14 KPIs was then assessed using a 3-round modified Delphi panel based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Ten panelists across Canada participated based on their expertise in JIA, quality measurement, or lived experience as a parent of a child with JIA. During rounds 1 and 3, panelists rated each KPI on a 1-9 Likert scale on themes of importance, feasibility, and priority. In round 2, panelists participated in a moderated in-person discussion that resulted in minor modifications to some KPIs. KPIs with median scores of ≥ 7 on all 3 questions without disagreement were included in the framework.ResultsTen KPIs met the criteria for inclusion after round 3. Five KPIs addressed patient assessments: pain, joint count, functional status, global assessment of disease activity, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS). Three KPIs examined access to care: wait times for consultation, access to pediatric rheumatologists within 1 year of diagnosis, and frequency of clinical follow-up. Safety was addressed through KPIs on tuberculous screening and laboratory monitoring. KPIs examining functional status using the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), quality of life, uveitis, and patient satisfaction were excluded due to concerns about feasibility of measurement.ConclusionsThe proposed KPIs build upon existing KPIs and address important processes of care that should be measured to improve the quality of JIA care. The feasibility of capturing these measures will be tested in various data sources including the Understanding Childhood Arthritis Network (UCAN) studies. Subsequent work should focus on development of meaningful outcome KPIs to drive JIA quality improvement in Canada and beyond.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of an intern surgical skills curriculum involving a boot camp for core open and laparoscopic skills, self-guided practice with positive and negative incentives, and semiannual performance evaluations.DesignLongitudinal cohort study.SettingAcademic tertiary care center.ParticipantsIntervention group (n = 15): residents who completed the intern surgical skills curriculum and had performance evaluations in fall of intern year, spring of intern year, and fall of second year. Control group (n = 8): second-year residents who were 1 year ahead of the intervention group in the same residency program, did not participate in the curriculum, and had performance evaluations in fall of second year.ResultsIn fall of second year of residency, the intervention group had better performance (presented as median values with interquartile ranges) than the control group on one-hand ties (left hand: 9.1 [6.3-10.1] vs 14.6 [13.5-15.4] seconds, p = 0.007; right hand: 8.7 [8.5-9.6] vs 11.5 [9.9-16.8] seconds, p = 0.039). The intervention group also had better performance on all open suturing skills, including mattress suturing (vertical: 33.4 [30.0-40.0] vs 55.8 [50.0-67.6] seconds, p = 0.001; horizontal: 28.7 [27.3-39.9] vs 52.7 [40.7-57.8] seconds, p = 0.003), and a water-filled glove clamp, divide, and ligate task (28.0 [25.0-31.0] vs 59.1 [53.0-93.0] seconds, p < 0.001). Finally, the intervention group had better performance on all laparoscopic skills, including peg transfer (66.0 [59.0-82.0] vs 95.2 [87.5-101.5] seconds, p = 0.018), circle cut (82.0 [69.0-124.0] seconds vs 191.8 [155.5-231.5] seconds, p = 0.002), and intracorporeal suturing (195.0 [117.0-200.0] seconds vs 359.5 [269.0-450.0] seconds, p = 0.002).ConclusionsImplementation of a comprehensive surgical skills curriculum was associated with improved performance on core open and laparoscopic skills. Further research is needed to understand and optimize motivational factors for deliberate practice and surgical skill acquisition.

Project description:BackgroundLifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.MethodsWe included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients' records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.ResultsThe principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 ("headache") rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients' satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives in primary care are effective at improving uptake of evidence based guidelines, but are difficult to implement and sustain. In Australia meso-level health organisations such as Primary health care Organisations (PHCO) offer new opportunities to implement area-wide QI programs. This study sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of an existing Australian QI program and to identify strategic directions that PHCOs can use in the ongoing development of QI in this environment. METHODS:Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 purposively selected program staff and participants from the Australian Primary Care Collaborative (APCC) QI program. Interviewees included seven people involved in design, administration and implementation of the APCC program and eight primary care providers (seven General Practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse) who had participated in the program from 2004 to 2014. Interviewees were asked to describe their experience of the program and reflect on what enabled or impeded its implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and iteratively analysed, with early analysis informing subsequent interviews. Identified themes and their implications were reviewed by a GP expert reference group. RESULTS:Implementation enablers and barriers were grouped into five thematic areas: (1) leadership, particularly the identification and utilisation of change champions; (2) organisational culture that supports quality improvement; (3) funding incentives that support a culture of quality and innovation; (4) access to and use of accurate data; and 5) design and utilisation of clinical systems that enable and support these issues. In all of these areas, the active involvement of an overarching external support organisation was considered a key ingredient to successful implementation. CONCLUSION:There are substantial opportunities for PHCOs to play a pivotal role in QI implementation in Australia and internationally. In developing QI programs and policies, such organisations ought to invest their efforts in: (1) identifying and mentoring local leaders; (2) fostering QI culture via development of local peer networks; (3) developing and advocating for alternative funding models to support and incentivise these activities; (4) investing in data and audit tool infrastructure; and (5) facilitation of systems implementation within primary care practices.

Dataset Information

Quality improvement implementation and hospital performance on quality indicators.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Quality improvement implementation and hospital performance on quality indicators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets