Dataset Information

Governing healthcare through performance measurement in Massachusetts and the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT: Massachusetts and the Netherlands have implemented comprehensive health reforms, which have heightened the importance of performance measurement. The performance measures addressing access to health care and patient experience are similar in the two jurisdictions, but measures of processes and outcomes of care differ considerably. In both jurisdictions, the use of health outcomes to compare the quality of health care organizations is limited, and specific information about costs is lacking. New legislation in both jurisdictions led to the establishment of public agencies to monitor the quality of care, similar mandates to make the performance of health care providers transparent, and to establish a shared responsibility of providers, consumers and insurers to improve the quality of health care. In Massachusetts a statewide mandatory quality measure set was established to monitor the quality of care. The Netherlands is stimulating development of performance measures by providers based on a mandatory framework for developing such measures. Both jurisdictions are expanding the use of patient-reported outcomes to support patient care, quality improvement, and performance comparisons with the aim of explicitly linking performance to new payment incentives.

SUBMITTER: Van der Wees PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4744871 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Governing healthcare through performance measurement in Massachusetts and the Netherlands.

Van der Wees Philip J PJ Nijhuis-van der Sanden Maria W G MW van Ginneken Ewout E Ayanian John Z JZ Schneider Eric C EC Westert Gert P GP

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 20130928 1

Massachusetts and the Netherlands have implemented comprehensive health reforms, which have heightened the importance of performance measurement. The performance measures addressing access to health care and patient experience are similar in the two jurisdictions, but measures of processes and outcomes of care differ considerably. In both jurisdictions, the use of health outcomes to compare the quality of health care organizations is limited, and specific information about costs is lacking. New ...[more]

PMID: 24138729

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The science of measuring and reporting on the performance of healthcare systems is rapidly evolving. In the past decade, across many jurisdictions, organisations tasked with monitoring progress towards reform targets have broadened their purview to take a more system-functioning approach. Their aim is to bring clarity to performance assessment, using relevant and robust concepts - and avoiding reductionist measures - to build a whole-of-system view of performance. Existing performance frameworks are not fully aligned with these developments. METHODS:An eight stage process to develop a conceptual framework incorporated literature review, mapping, categorisation, integration, synthesis and validation of performance constructs that have been used by organisations and researchers in order to assess, reflect and report on healthcare performance. RESULTS:A total of 19 performance frameworks were identified and included in the review. Existing frameworks mostly adopted either a logic model (inputs, outputs and outcomes), a functional, or a goal-achievement approach. The mapping process identified 110 performance terms and concepts. These were integrated, synthesised and resynthesised to produce a framework that features 12 derived constructs reflecting combinations of patients' needs and expectations; healthcare resources and structures; receipt and experience of healthcare services; healthcare processes, functions and context; and healthcare outcomes. The 12 constructs gauge performance in terms of coverage, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, safety, productivity, efficiency, impact, sustainability, resilience, adaptability and equity. They reflect four performance perspectives (patient, population, delivery organisation and system). CONCLUSIONS:Internationally, healthcare systems and researchers have used a variety of terms to categorise indicators of healthcare performance, however few frameworks are based on a theoretically-based conceptual underpinning. The proposed framework incorporates a manageable number of performance domains that together provide a comprehensive assessment, as well as conceptual and operational clarity and coherence that support multifaceted measurement systems for healthcare.

Project description:Dried blood spot (DBS) may overestimate the viral RNA, mainly in patients with low viral load (VL), due to proviral DNA and intracellular RNA. The Burnett and HemaSpot provide integrated solutions for the collection, separation, and drying of plasma from whole blood. This study aims to evaluate the performance of both devices compared to plasma to identify antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure. The devices were separately evaluated in a cross-sectional design. Patients on ART were included for the studies (Burnett: 611, October 2019 to January 2020) and (HemaSpot: 620, November 2020 to April 2021). VL was tested using CAP/CTM96. The sensitivity and specificity of DBS, Burnett, and HemaSpot were determined, and plasma results were considered as a reference at a threshold of 1,000 copies/ml. For the Burnett study, 2,444 specimens, including plasma, DBS, venous Burnett (vBurnett), and capillary Burnett (cBurnett), were collected. Sensitivity of DBS, vBurnett, and cBurnett was 97.4%, 98.3%, and 97.5%, respectively, whereas specificity was 86.8% for DBS, 96.9% for vBurnett, and 93.9% for cBurnett. For the HemaSpot study, 1,860 specimens were collected, including plasma, DBS, and vHemaSpot. Sensitivity of DBS and vHemaSpot was 95.0% and 91.3%, respectively, whereas specificity was 86.9% for DBS and 94.5% for vHemaSpot. The misclassification rate was more prominent in DBS (4.8%) and HemaSpot (8.4%) but lower in vBurnett (2.0%) and cBurnett (3.2%). The Burnett showed better performance than DBS, whereas HemaSpot showed poorer performance than DBS. Nevertheless, both Burnett and HemaSpot have high rate of non-reportable results. In the current format, neither of the two devices is feasible for VL scale-up in resource-limited settings.IMPORTANCEBurnett and HemaSpot are two novel technologies that allow whole blood collection and plasma separation and stabilization at room temperature without the need of additional equipment. Hence, these devices are potential alternatives to fresh plasma as a suitable specimen for viral load scale-up to monitor antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings.

Project description:BackgroundMaternal and child health are internationally considered to be among the best measures for assessing health-care quality. The study was carried out with the following aims: 1) to assess the quality of perinatal care (PC) by measuring the frequencies of the five PC indicators developed by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and comparing results with international standards; 2) to examine whether maternal, pregnancy care and neonatal characteristics could be factors associated with the quality of perinatal care hospital performance, measured through these indicators.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed medical charts of women over the age of 18 who experienced delivery in Gynecology/obstetrics wards between January-December 2016, and those of their newborns hospitalized in the Neonatology or Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of a public non-teaching hospital in Catanzaro (Italy). Indicators were calculated according to the methodology specified in the manual for JCAHO measures. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to test the independent association of maternal, pregnancy care and neonatal characteristics on the adherence to JCAHO PC indicators.ResultsThe records of 1943 women and 1974 newborns were identified and reviewed in order to be included in at least one of the PC indicators. Elective/early-term delivery, was performed in 27.6% of eligible women, far from the recommended goal (0%); cesarean section in nulliparous women with a term, singleton baby in a vertex position exceeded the suggested target of <?24% and the adherence to antenatal steroids administration was suboptimal (87%). Results of the exclusive breastfeeding indicator achieved a better performance (81%) and compliance with the PC-04 indicator was satisfactory with only 0.4% healthcare-associated bloodstream infection developed in eligible newborns.ConclusionsThis is the first study performed in Italy that has evaluated the quality of PC by using all the five JCAHO indicators. The application of this feasible set of indicators allowed us to measure several aspects of PC for which there is no standardized monitoring system in Italy. Our findings revealed significant deficiencies in the adherence to recommended processes of PC and suggest that there is still substantial work required to improve care.

Project description:Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (Ag) that can be performed at point of care (POC) can supplement molecular testing and help mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Deployment of an Ag RDT requires an understanding of its operational and performance characteristics under real-world conditions and in relevant subpopulations. We evaluated the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card in a high-throughput, drive-through, free community testing site in Massachusetts using anterior nasal (AN) swab reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) for clinical testing. Individuals presenting for molecular testing in two of seven lanes were offered the opportunity to also receive BinaxNOW testing. Dual AN swabs were collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic children (≤18 years of age) and adults. BinaxNOW testing was performed in a testing pod with temperature/humidity monitoring. One individual performed testing and official result reporting for each test, but most tests had a second independent reading to assess interoperator agreement. Positive BinaxNOW results were scored as faint, medium, or strong. Positive BinaxNOW results were reported to patients by phone, and they were instructed to isolate pending RT-PCR results. The paired RT-PCR result was the reference for sensitivity and specificity calculations. Of 2,482 participants, 1,380 adults and 928 children had paired RT-PCR/BinaxNOW results and complete symptom data. In this study, 974/1,380 (71%) adults and 829/928 (89%) children were asymptomatic. BinaxNOW had 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.0 to 99.3) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100.0) specificity in adults within 7 days of symptoms and 84.6% (95% CI, 65.1 to 95.6) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI, 94.5 to 100.0) specificity in children within 7 days of symptoms. Sensitivity and specificity in asymptomatic adults were 70.2% (95% CI, 56.6 to 81.6) and 99.6% (95% CI, 98.9 to 99.9), respectively, and in asymptomatic children, they were 65.4% (95% CI, 55.6 to 74.4) and 99.0% (95% CI, 98.0 to 99.6), respectively. By cycle threshold (CT ) value cutoff, sensitivity in all subgroups combined (n = 292 RT-PCR-positive individuals) was 99.3% with CT values of ≤25, 95.8% with CT values of ≤30, and 81.2% with CT values of ≤35. Twelve false-positive BinaxNOW results (out of 2,308 tests) were observed; in all 12, the test bands were faint but otherwise normal and were noted by both readers. One invalid BinaxNOW result was identified. Interoperator agreement (positive versus negative BinaxNOW result) was 100% (n = 2,230/2,230 double reads). Each operator was able to process 20 RDTs per hour. In a separate set of 30 specimens (from individuals with symptoms ≤7 days) run at temperatures below the manufacturer's recommended range (46 to 58.5°F), sensitivity was 66.7% and specificity 95.2%. BinaxNOW had very high specificity in both adults and children and very high sensitivity in newly symptomatic adults. Overall, 95.8% sensitivity was observed with CT values of ≤30. These data support public health recommendations for use of the BinaxNOW test in adults with symptoms for ≤7 days without RT-PCR confirmation. Excellent interoperator agreement indicates that an individual can perform and read the BinaxNOW test alone. A skilled laboratorian can perform and read 20 tests per hour. Careful attention to temperature is critical.

Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, socioeconomic differences in health and use of healthcare resources have been reported, even in countries providing universal healthcare coverage. However, it is unclear how large these socioeconomic differences are for different types of care and to what extent health status plays a role. Therefore, our aim was to examine to what extent healthcare expenditure and utilization differ according to educational level and income, and whether these differences can be explained by health inequalities.MethodsData from 18,936 participants aged 25-79 years of the Dutch Health Interview Survey were linked at the individual level to nationwide claims data that included healthcare expenditure covered in 2017. For healthcare utilization, participants reported use of different types of healthcare in the past 12 months. The association of education/income with healthcare expenditure/utilization was studied separately for different types of healthcare such as GP and hospital care. Subsequently, analyses were adjusted for general health, physical limitations, and mental health.ResultsFor most types of healthcare, participants with lower educational and income levels had higher healthcare expenditure and used more healthcare compared to participants with the highest educational and income levels. Total healthcare expenditure was approximately between 50 and 150 % higher (depending on age group) among people in the lowest educational and income levels. These differences generally disappeared or decreased after including health covariates in the analyses. After adjustment for health, socioeconomic differences in total healthcare expenditure were reduced by 74-91 %.ConclusionsIn this study among Dutch adults, lower socioeconomic status was associated with increased healthcare expenditure and utilization. These socioeconomic differences largely disappeared after taking into account health status, which implies that, within the universal Dutch healthcare system, resources are being spent where they are most needed. Improving health among lower socioeconomic groups may contribute to decreasing health inequalities and healthcare spending.

Dataset Information

Governing healthcare through performance measurement in Massachusetts and the Netherlands.

Publications

Governing healthcare through performance measurement in Massachusetts and the Netherlands.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets