Public reporting helped drive quality improvement in outpatient diabetes care among Wisconsin physician groups.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3329125 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Public reporting helped drive quality improvement in outpatient diabetes care among Wisconsin physician groups.
Smith Maureen A MA Wright Alexandra A Queram Christopher C Lamb Geoffrey C GC
Health affairs (Project Hope) 20120301 3
Public reporting on the quality of ambulatory health care is growing, but knowledge of how physician groups respond to such reporting has not kept pace. We examined responses to public reporting on the quality of diabetes care in 409 primary care clinics within seventeen large, multispecialty physician groups. We determined that a focus on publicly reported metrics, along with participation in large or externally sponsored projects, increased a clinic's implementation of diabetes improvement int ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effect of public reporting (PR) and financial incentives tied to quality performance on the use of care management practices (CMPs) among small- and medium-sized physician groups.DataSurvey data from The National Study of Small and Medium-sized Physician Practices were used. Primary data collection was also conducted to assess community-level PR activities. The final sample included 643 practices engaged in quality reporting; about half of these practices were subject to PR.Study designWe used a treatment effects model. The instrumental variables were the community-level variables that capture the level of PR activity in each community in which the practices operate.Findings(1) PR is associated with increased use of CMPs, but the estimate is not statistically significant; (2) financial incentives are associated with greater use of CMPs; (3) practices' awareness/sensitivity to quality reports is positively related to their use of CMPs; and (4) combined PR and financial incentives jointly affect CMP use to a greater degree than either of these factors alone.ConclusionSmall- to medium-sized practices appear to respond to PR and financial incentives by greater use of CMPs. Future research needs to investigate the appropriate mix and type of incentive arrangements and quality reporting.
| S-EPMC3626343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training.MethodsSurvey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012.: Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions.ResultsOf 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers' practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients.ConclusionsPublic reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.
| S-EPMC7014742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere has been a growth in the use of performance-based payment models in the past decade, but inherently noisy and stochastic quality measures complicate the assessment of the quality of physician groups. Examining consistently low performance across multiple measures or multiple years could potentially identify a subset of low-quality physician groups.ObjectiveTo identify low-performing physician groups based on consistently low performance after adjusting for patient characteristics across multiple measures or multiple years for 10 commonly used quality measures for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD).Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used medical and pharmacy claims and laboratory data for enrollees ages 18 to 65 years with diabetes or CVD in an Aetna health insurance plan between 2016 and 2019. Each physician group's risk-adjusted performance for a given year was estimated using mixed-effects linear probability regression models. Performance was correlated across measures and time, and the proportion of physician groups that performed in the bottom quartile was examined across multiple measures or multiple years. Data analysis was conducted between September 2020 and May 2021.ExposuresPrimary care physician groups.Main outcomes and measuresPerformance scores of 6 quality measures for diabetes and 4 for CVD, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, low-density lipoprotein testing, statin use, HbA1c control, low-density lipoprotein control, and hospital-based utilization.ResultsA total of 786 641 unique enrollees treated by 890 physician groups were included; 414 655 (52.7%) of the enrollees were men and the mean (SD) age was 53 (9.5) years. After adjusting for age, sex, and clinical and social risk variables, correlations among individual measures were weak (eg, performance-adjusted correlation between any statin use and LDL testing for patients with diabetes, r = -0.10) to moderate (correlation between LDL testing for diabetes and LDL testing for CVD, r = .43), but year-to-year correlations for all measures were moderate to strong. One percent or fewer of physician groups performed in the bottom quartile for all 6 diabetes measures or all 4 cardiovascular disease measures in any given year, while 14 (4.0%) to 39 groups (11.1%) were in the bottom quartile in all 4 years for any given measure other than hospital-based utilization for CVD (1.1%).Conclusions and relevanceA subset of physician groups that was consistently low performing could be identified by considering performance measures across multiple years. Considering the consistency of group performance could contribute a novel method to identify physician groups most likely to benefit from limited resources.
| S-EPMC8319756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The overprovision and irrational use of antibiotics and injections are a major public health concern. Public reporting has been adopted as a strategy to encourage good prescribing practices. This study evaluated the effects of public reporting on antibiotic and injection prescriptions in urban and rural primary care settings in Hubei province, China. A randomized control trial was conducted, with 10 primary care institutions being subject to public reporting and another 10 serving as controls. Prescription indicators were publicly reported monthly over a one-year period. Prescriptions for bronchitis, gastritis and hypertension before and after the intervention were collected. Difference-in-difference tests were performed to estimate the effect size of the intervention on five prescription indicators: percentage of prescriptions containing antibiotics; percentage of prescriptions containing two or more antibiotics; percentage of prescriptions containing injections; percentage of prescriptions containing antibiotic injections; and average prescription cost. Public reporting had varied effects on prescriptions for different diagnoses. It reduced antibiotic prescribing for gastritis. Prescriptions containing injections, especially antibiotic injections, also declined, but only for gastritis. A reduction of prescription costs was noted for bronchitis and gastritis. Public reporting has the potential to encourage good prescribing practices. Its effects vary with different disease conditions.
| S-EPMC5172199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe impact of quality improvement incentives on nontargeted care is unknown and some have expressed concern that such incentives may be harmful to nontargeted areas of care. Our objective is to examine the effect of publicly reporting quality information on unreported quality of care.Data sources/study settingThe nursing home Minimum Data Set from 1999 to 2005 on all postacute care admissions.Study designWe studied 13,683 skilled nursing facilities and examined how unreported aspects of clinical care changed in response to changes in reported care after public reporting was initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on their website, Nursing Home Compare, in 2002.Principal findingsWe find that overall both unreported and reported care improved following the launch of public reporting. Improvements in unreported care were particularly large among facilities with high scores or that significantly improved on reported measures, whereas low-scoring facilities experienced no change or worsening of their unreported quality of care.ConclusionsPublic reporting in the setting of postacute care had mixed effects on areas without public reporting, improving in high-ranking facilities, but worsening in low-ranking facilities. While the benefits of public reporting may extend beyond areas that are being directly measured, these initiatives may also widen the gap between high- and low-quality facilities.
| S-EPMC2677045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe study aimed to explore reporting characteristics of scoping reviews in dental public health and the impact of some factors on the reporting quality.MethodsThis study searched for dental public health scoping reviews in PubMed and Scopus without year restrictions and restricted to English-language publications. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. One reviewer, after training, extracted data from included studies considering general study characteristics and reporting characteristics. The impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, journal endorsement, and use of study protocol on the reporting was explored.ResultsEighty-one scoping reviews were included. Five items presented rates of appropriate reporting higher than 80% considering the overall percentage. Related to the impact of PRISMA-ScR publication, six items were found more often in scoping reviews published after the publication of PRISMA-ScR than in scoping reviews published before the publication of PRISMA-ScR. With regards to journals endorsement, only two reporting characteristics were found more often in scoping reviews published in journals that endorse the PRISMA-ScR statement than in scoping reviews published in non-endorsers journals. Last, regarding the use of the pre-specified protocol, five reporting characteristics presented differences in studies reporting the use of pre-specified protocol than in studies that did not mention the use of a protocol. All differences were statistically significant.ConclusionsImportant information is missing in the included scoping reviews demonstrating crucial reporting problems.
| S-EPMC9972695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEvidence supporting the use of public reporting of quality information to improve health care quality is mixed. While public reporting may improve reported quality, its effect on quality of care more broadly is uncertain. This study tests whether public reporting in the setting of nursing homes resulted in improvement of reported and broader but unreported quality of postacute care.Data sources/study setting1999-2005 nursing home Minimum Data Set and inpatient Medicare claims.Study designWe examined changes in postacute care quality in U.S. nursing homes in response to the initiation of public reporting on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website, Nursing Home Compare. We used small nursing homes that were not subject to public reporting as a contemporaneous control and also controlled for patient selection into nursing homes. Postacute care quality was measured using three publicly reported clinical quality measures and 30-day potentially preventable rehospitalization rates, an unreported measure of quality.Principal findingsReported quality of postacute care improved after the initiation of public reporting for two of the three reported quality measures used in Nursing Home Compare. However, rates of potentially preventable rehospitalization did not significantly improve and, in some cases, worsened.ConclusionsPublic reporting of nursing home quality was associated with an improvement in most postacute care performance measures but not in the broader measure of rehospitalization.
| S-EPMC2739023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Public reporting (PR) is a policy mechanism that may improve clinical outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, prior studies have shown that PR may have an adverse impact on patient selection. It is unclear whether alternatives to PR, such as collaborative quality improvement (CQI), may drive improvements in quality of care and outcomes for patients receiving PCI without the unintended consequences seen with PR. METHODS:Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from January 2011 through September 2012, we evaluated patients who underwent PCI in New York (NY), a state with PR (N = 51,983), to Michigan, a state with CQI (N = 53,528). We compared patient characteristics, the quality of care delivered, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:Patients undergoing PCI in NY had a lower-risk profile, with a lower proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or cardiogenic shock, compared with Michigan. Quality of care was broadly similar in the 2 states; however, outcomes were better in NY. In a propensity-matched analysis, patients in NY were less likely to be referred for emergent, urgent, or salvage coronary artery bypass surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P < .0001) and to receive blood transfusion (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61-0.82, P < .0001), and had lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.83, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS:Public reporting of PCI data is associated with fewer high-risk patients undergoing PCI compared with CQI. However, in comparable samples of patients, PR is also associated with a lower risk of mortality and adverse events. The optimal quality improvement method may involve combining these 2 strategies to protect access to care while still driving improvements in patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6948714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe effectiveness of a pathway with quality of life (QoL) diagnosis and therapy has been already demonstrated in an earlier randomized trial (RCT) in patients with breast cancer. We refined the pathway by developing and evaluating an electronic tool for QoL assessment in routine inpatient and outpatient care.MethodsIn a single-arm study, patients with breast cancer with surgical treatment in two German hospitals were enrolled. QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23) was measured with an electronic tool after surgery and during aftercare in outpatient medical practices (3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months) so that results (QoL-profile) were available immediately. Feedback by patients and physicians was analyzed to evaluate feasibility and impact on patient-physician communication.ResultsBetween May 2016 and July 2018, 56 patients were enrolled. Physicians evaluated the QoL pathway as feasible. Patients whose physician regularly discussed QoL-profiles with them reported significantly more often that their specific needs were cared for (p < .001) and that their physician had found the right treatment strategy for these needs (p < .001) compared with patients whose doctor never/rarely discussed QoL-profiles. The latter significantly more often had no benefit from QoL assessments (p < .001).ConclusionThe QoL pathway with electronic QoL assessments is feasible for inpatient and outpatient care. QoL results should be discussed directly with the patient.Clinical trial informationNCT04334096, date of registration 06.04.2020.
| S-EPMC8550515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical vignettes have been used widely to compare quality of clinical care and to assess variation in practice, but the effect of different response formats has not been extensively evaluated. Our objective was to compare three clinical vignette-based survey response formats - open-ended questionnaire (A), closed-ended (multiple-choice) questionnaire with deceptive response items mixed with correct items (B), and closed-ended questionnaire with only correct items (C) - in rheumatologists' pre-treatment assessment for tumor-necrosis-factor (TNF) blocker therapy.MethodsStudy designProspective randomized study.SettingRheumatologists attending the 2004 French Society of Rheumatology meeting. Physicians were given a vignette describing the history of a fictitious woman with active rheumatoid arthritis, who was a candidate for therapy with TNF blocking agents, and then were randomized to receive questionnaire A, B, or C, each containing the same four questions but with different response formats, that asked about their pretreatment assessment.MeasurementsLong (recommended items) and short (mandatory items) checklists were developed for pretreatment assessment for TNF-blocker therapy, and scores were expressed on the basis of responses to questionnaires A, B, and C as the percentage of respondents correctly choosing explicit items on these checklists.Statistical analysisComparison of the selected items using pairwise Chi-square tests with Bonferonni correction for variables with statistically significant differences.ResultsData for all surveys distributed (114 As, 118 Bs, and 118 Cs) were complete and available for analysis. The percentage of questionnaire A, B, and C respondents for whom data was correctly complete for the short checklist was 50.4%, 84.0% and 95.0%, respectively, and was 0%, 5.0% and 5.9%, respectively, for the long version. As an example, 65.8%, 85.7% and 95.8% of the respondents of A, B, and C questionnaires, respectively, correctly identified the need for tuberculin skin test (p < 0.0001).ConclusionIn evaluating clinical practice with use of a clinical vignette, a multiple-choice format rather than an open-ended format overestimates physician performance. The insertion of deceptive response items mixed with correct items in closed-ended (multiple-choice) questionnaire failed to avoid this overestimation.
| S-EPMC3224732 | biostudies-literature