Dataset Information

Assessing Four Quality Indicators for Multiple Sclerosis Management Through Patient-Reported Data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although hundreds of quality indicators (QIs) have been developed for various chronic conditions, QIs specific to multiple sclerosis (MS) care have only recently been developed. We sought to examine the extent to which the self-reported care of individuals with MS meets four recently developed MS QIs related to treatment of depression, spasticity, and fatigue and timely initiation of disease-modifying agents (DMAs) for relapsing MS.

Methods

Using the Sonya Slifka Study data, we examined the proportion of the MS population meeting four QIs (based on patient-reported data) in a sample of individuals with MS in 2007-2009. For the three diagnoses, meeting the QI was defined as receiving appropriate medication or seeing a provider for treatment of the diagnosis; for timely initiation, it was defined as receiving a DMA within 3 months of a relapsing MS diagnosis. We also examined differences in characteristics between respondents who met the QI versus those who did not.

Results

Approximately two-thirds of people with MS in this sample, per the predefined criteria, met the QIs for treatment of depression, management of spasticity, and DMA initiation within 3 months of a relapsing diagnosis, and approximately one-fifth met the QI for management of fatigue. There were some significant differences in characteristics between respondents who met the QIs and those who did not.

Conclusions

This study examined a subset of MS QIs based on patient-reported data. Additional data sources are needed to fully assess compliance with MS QIs.

SUBMITTER: Shoemaker SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4984792 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing Four Quality Indicators for Multiple Sclerosis Management Through Patient-Reported Data.

Shoemaker Sarah J SJ Pozniak Alyssa A Hadden Louise L

International journal of MS care 20160701 4

<h4>Background</h4>Although hundreds of quality indicators (QIs) have been developed for various chronic conditions, QIs specific to multiple sclerosis (MS) care have only recently been developed. We sought to examine the extent to which the self-reported care of individuals with MS meets four recently developed MS QIs related to treatment of depression, spasticity, and fatigue and timely initiation of disease-modifying agents (DMAs) for relapsing MS.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the Sonya Slifka Study ...[more]

PMID: 27551245

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStarting in 2005, Germany's health law required hospital quality reports to be published every two years by all acute care hospitals. The reports were intended to help patients and physicians make informed choices of hospitals. However, while establishing the quality indicators that form the content of the reports, the information needs of the target groups were not explicitly taken into account. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine patient and physician opinion of the relevance of the reported quality indicators for choosing or referring to a hospital.MethodsConvenience samples of 50 patients and 50 physicians were asked to rate the understandability (patients), suitability (physicians) and relevance (both groups) of a set of 29 quality indicators. The set was drawn from the reports (24 indicators) and supplemented by five indicators commonly used in hospital quality reports. We analysed the differences in patient and physician ratings of relevance of all indicators by applying descriptive statistics, t-tests and Wilcoxon tests.ResultsOnly three indicators were considered not understandable by the interviewed patients and unsuitable by the interviewed physicians. The patients rated 19 indicators as highly or very relevant, whereas the physicians chose 15 indicators. The most relevant indicator for the patients was "qualification of doctors", and for the physicians "volume of specified surgical procedures". Patient and physician rankings of individual indicators differed for 25 indicators. However, three groups of indicators could be differentiated, in which the relevance ratings of patients and physicians differed only within the groups. Four of the five indicators that were added to the existing set of reported indicators ranked in the first or second group ("kindness of staff", "patient satisfaction", "recommendation", and "distance to place of living").ConclusionMost of the content of Germany's hospital quality reports seems to be useful for patients and physicians and influence their choice of hospitals. However, the target groups revealed that approximately one third of the indicators (mostly hospital structural characteristics), were not useful and hence could have been omitted from the reports. To enhance the usefulness of the reports, indicators on patient experiences should be added.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing emphasis on using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to complement traditional clinical outcomes in medical research, including in multiple sclerosis (MS). Research, particularly in oncology and heart failure, has shown that PROs can be prognostic of hard clinical endpoints such as survival time (time from study entry until death). However, unlike in oncology or cardiology, it is unknown whether PROs are associated with survival time in neurological diseases. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) is a PRO sensitive to short-term change in MS, with questions covering both physical and psychological quality of life. This study aimed to investigate whether MSIS-29 scores can be prognostic for survival time in MS, using a large observational cohort of people with MS.Methods and findingsFrom 15 July 2004 onwards, MSIS-29 questionnaires were completed by people with MS registered with the MS Society Tissue Bank (n = 2,126, repeated 1 year later with n = 872 of the original respondents). By 2014, 264 participants (12.4%) had died. Higher baseline MSIS-29 physical (MSIS-29-PHYS) score was associated with reduced survival time (subgroup with highest scores versus subgroup with lowest scores: hazard ratio [HR] 5.7, 95% CI 3.1-10.5, p < 0.001). Higher baseline MSIS-29 psychological score was also associated with reduced survival time (subgroup with highest scores versus subgroup with lowest scores: HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.8-4.4, p < 0.001). In those with high baseline MSIS-29 scores, mortality risk was even greater if the MSIS-29 score worsened over 1 year (HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.4, p = 0.02). MSIS-29-PHYS scores were associated with survival time independent of age, sex, and patient-reported Expanded Disability Status Scale score in a Cox regression analysis (per 1-SD increase in MSIS-29-PHYS score: HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.9, p = 0.03). A limitation of the study is that this cohort had high baseline age and disability levels; the prognostic value of MSIS-29 for survival time at earlier disease stages requires further investigation.ConclusionsThis study reports that PROs can be prognostic for hard clinical outcomes in neurological disease, and supports PROs as a meaningful clinical outcome for use in research and clinical settings.

Dataset Information

Assessing Four Quality Indicators for Multiple Sclerosis Management Through Patient-Reported Data.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Assessing Four Quality Indicators for Multiple Sclerosis Management Through Patient-Reported Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure