Dataset Information

Assessing the Quality of Osteoporosis Care in Practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with osteoporosis can sustain fractures following falls or other minimal trauma. This risk of fracture can be reduced through appropriate diagnostic testing, pharmacologic therapy, and other readily measured standards of care.

Objectives

Our aim was to develop a credible clinical performance assessment to measure physicians' quality of osteoporosis care, and determine reasonable performance standards for both competent and excellent care.

Design

This was a retrospective cohort study.

Participants

Three hundred and eighty one general internists and subspecialists with time-limited board certification were included in the study.

Main measures

Performance rates on eight evidence-based measures were obtained from the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Osteoporosis Practice Improvement Module® (PIM), a web-based tool that uses medical chart reviews to help physicians assess and improve care. We applied a patented methodology, using an adaptation of the Angoff standard-setting method and the Dunn-Rankin method, with an expert panel skilled in osteoporosis care to form a composite and establish standards for both competent and excellent care. Physician and practice characteristics, including a practice infrastructure score based on the Physician Practice Connections Readiness Survey (PPC-RS), were used to examine the validity of the inferences made from the composite scores.

Key results

The mean composite score was 67.54 out of 100 maximum points with a reliability of 0.92. The standard for competent care was 46.87, and for excellent care it was 83.58. Both standards had high classification accuracies (0.95). Sixteen percent of physicians performed below the competent care standard, while 22 % met the excellent care standard. Specialists scored higher than generalists, and better practice infrastructure was associated with higher composite scores, providing some validity evidence.

Conclusions

We developed a rigorous methodology for assessing physicians' osteoporosis care. Clinical performance feedback relative to absolute standards of care provides physicians with a meaningful approach to self-evaluation to improve patient care.

SUBMITTER: Weng W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4617929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically and rigorously examined the quality of care provided in educational practice sites. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the patient population cared for by trainees in internal medicine residency clinics; (2) assess the quality of preventive cardiology care provided to these patients; (3) characterize the practice-based systems that currently exist in internal medicine residency clinics; and (4) examine the relationships between quality, practice-based systems, and features of the program: size, type of program, and presence of an electronic medical record. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: This study was conducted in 15 Internal Medicine residency programs (23 sites) throughout the USA. PARTICIPANTS: The participants included site champions at residency programs and 709 residents. MEASUREMENTS: Abstracted charts provided data about patient demographics, coronary heart disease risk factors, processes of care, and clinical outcomes. Patients completed surveys regarding satisfaction. Site teams completed a practice systems survey. RESULTS: Chart abstraction of 4,783 patients showed substantial variability across sites. On average, patients had between 3 and 4 of the 9 potential risk factors for coronary heart disease, and approximately 21% had at least 1 important barrier of care. Patients received an average of 57% (range, 30-77%) of the appropriate interventions. Reported satisfaction with care was high. Sites with an electronic medical record showed better overall information management (81% vs 27%) and better modes of communication (79% vs 43%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided insight into the current state of practice in residency sites including aspects of the practice environment and quality of preventive cardiology care delivered. Substantial heterogeneity among the training sites exists. Continuous measurement of the quality of care provided and a better understanding of the training environment in which this care is delivered are important goals for delivering high quality patient care.

Project description:Birth centres are described as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth in a home-like environment assisted by midwives and maternity care assistants. If complications arise or threaten, the woman is referred to a maternity unit of a hospital where an obstetrician will take over responsibility. In the last decade, a number of new birth centres have been established in the Netherlands, based on the assumption that birth centres provide better quality of care since they offer a better opportunity for more integrated care than the existing system with independent primary and secondary care providers. At present, there is no evidence for this assumption. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to present evidence-based recommendations for organization and functioning of future birth centres in the Netherlands. A necessary first step in this evaluation is the development of indicators for measuring the quality of the care delivered in birth centres in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to identify a comprehensive set of structure and process indicators to assess quality of birth centre care.We used mixed methods to develop a set of structure and process quality indicators for evaluating birth centre care. Beginning with a literature review, we developed an exhaustive list of determinants. We then used a Delphi study to narrow this list, calling on experts to rate the determinants for relevance and feasibility. A multidisciplinary expert panel of 63 experts, directly or indirectly involved with birth centre care, was invited to participate.A panel of 42 experts completed two Delphi rounds rating determinants of the quality of birth centre care based on their relevance (to the setting) and feasibility (of use). A set of 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators was identified to assess the quality of birth centre care in the Netherlands.We identified 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators concerning birth centre care. This set will be validated during the evaluation of birth centres in the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

Project description:SignificanceQuality refractive error care is essential for reducing vision impairment. Quality indicators and standardized approaches for assessing the quality of refractive error care need to be established.PurposeThis study aimed to develop a set of indicators for assessing the quality of refractive error care and test their applicability in a real-world setting using unannounced standardized patients (USPs).MethodsPatient outcomes and three quality of refractive error care (Q.REC) indicators (1, optimally prescribed spectacles; 2, adequately prescribed spectacles; 3, vector dioptric distance) were developed using existing literature, refraction training standards, and consulting educators. Twenty-one USPs with various refractive errors were trained to visit optical stores across Vietnam to have a refraction, observe techniques, and order spectacles. Spectacles were assessed against each Q.REC indicator and tested for associations with vision and comfort.ResultsOverall, 44.1% (184/417) of spectacles provided good vision and comfort. Of the spectacles that met Q.REC indicators 1 and 2, 62.5 and 54.9%, respectively, provided both good vision and comfort. Optimally prescribed spectacles (indicator 1) were significantly more likely to provide good vision and comfort independently compared with spectacles that did not meet any indicator (good vision: 94.6 vs. 85.0%, P = .01; comfortable: 66.1 vs. 36.3%, P < .01). Adequately prescribed spectacles (indicator 2) were more likely to provide good comfort compared with spectacles not meeting any indicator (57.7 vs. 36.3%, P < .01); however, vision outcomes were not significantly different (85.9 vs. 85.0%, P = .90). Good vision was associated with a lower mean vector dioptric distance (P < .01) but not with comfort (P = .52).ConclusionsThe optimally prescribed spectacles indicator is a promising approach for assessing the quality of refractive error care without additional assessments of vision and comfort. Using USPs is a practical approach and could be used as a standardized method for evaluating the quality of refractive error care.