Dataset Information

Comparing VA and Non-VA Quality of Care: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system aims to provide high-quality medical care to veterans in the USA, but the quality of VA care has recently drawn the concern of Congress. The objective of this study was to systematically review published evidence examining the quality of care provided at VA health care facilities compared to quality of care in other facilities and systems.

Methods

Building on the search strategy and results of a prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2015) to identify relevant articles on the quality of care at VA facilities compared to non-VA facilities. Articles from the prior systematic review published from 2005 and onward were also included and re-abstracted. Studies were classified, analyzed, and summarized by the Institute of Medicine's quality dimensions.

Results

Sixty-nine articles were identified (including 31 articles from the prior systematic review and 38 new articles) that address one or more Institute of Medicine quality dimensions: safety (34 articles), effectiveness (24 articles), efficiency (9 articles), patient-centeredness (5 articles), equity (4 articles), and timeliness (1 article). Studies of safety and effectiveness indicated generally better or equal performance, with some exceptions. Too few articles related to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were found from which to reliably draw conclusions about VA care related to these dimensions.

Discussion

The VA often (but not always) performs better than or similarly to other systems of care with regard to the safety and effectiveness of care. Additional studies of quality of care in the VA are needed on all aspects of quality, but particularly with regard to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness.

SUBMITTER: O'Hanlon C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5215146 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing VA and Non-VA Quality of Care: A Systematic Review.

O'Hanlon Claire C Huang Christina C Sloss Elizabeth E Anhang Price Rebecca R Hussey Peter P Farmer Carrie C Gidengil Courtney C

Journal of general internal medicine 20160715 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system aims to provide high-quality medical care to veterans in the USA, but the quality of VA care has recently drawn the concern of Congress. The objective of this study was to systematically review published evidence examining the quality of care provided at VA health care facilities compared to quality of care in other facilities and systems.<h4>Methods</h4>Building on the search strategy and results of a prior systematic review, we se ...[more]

PMID: 27422615

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare 90-day postoperative complication rates between Veterans receiving cataract surgery in VA vs Community Care (CC) during the first year of implementation of the Veterans Choice Act.Data sourcesFiscal Year (FY) 2015 VA and CC outpatient data from VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) 10/01/14-9/30/15). FY14 data were used to obtain baseline clinical information prior to surgery.Study designRetrospective one-year study using secondary data to compare 90-day complication rates following cataract surgery (measured using National Quality Forum (NQF) criteria) in VA vs CC. NQF defines major complications from a specified list of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We ran a series of logistic regression models to predict 90-day complication rates, adjusting for Veterans' sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative ocular conditions, eye risk group, and type of cataract surgery (classified as routine vs complex).Data collectionWe linked VA and CC users through patient identifiers obtained from the CDW files. Our sample included all enrolled Veterans who received outpatient cataract surgery either in the VA or through CC during FY15. Cataract surgeries were identified through CPT codes 66 984 (routine) and 66 982 (complex).Principal findingsOf the 83,879 cataract surgeries performed in FY15, 31 percent occurred through CC. Undergoing complex surgery and having a high-risk eye (based on preoperative ocular conditions) were the strongest clinical predictors of 90-day postoperative complications. Overall, we found low complication rates, ranging from 1.1 percent in low-risk eyes to 3.6 percent in high-risk eyes. After adjustment for important confounders (eg, race, rurality, and preoperative ocular conditions), there were no statistically significant differences in 90-day complication rates between Veterans receiving cataract surgery in VA vs CC.ConclusionsAs more Veterans seek care through CC, future studies should continue to monitor quality of care across the two care settings to help inform VA's "make vs buy decisions."

Project description:BackgroundTo identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged.ResultsForty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n?=?12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.ConclusionsPatient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care.RegistrationN/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

Project description:BackgroundDespite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings.MethodsOvid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.ResultsThe search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients.ConclusionsThe identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJD) are multifactor, complex clinical problems affecting approximately 60-70% of the general population, with considerable controversy about the most effective treatment. For example, reports claim success rates of 70% and 83% for non-surgical and surgical treatment, whereas other reports claim success rates of 40% to 70% for self-improvement without treatment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) identify systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment, (2) evaluate their methodological quality, and (3) evaluate the evidence grade within the systematic reviews. METHODS: A search strategy was developed and implemented for MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Brazilian Dentistry Bibliography databases. Inclusion criteria were: systematic reviews (+/- meta-analysis) comparing surgical and non-surgical TMJD treatment, published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or German between the years 1966 and 2007(up to July). Exclusion criteria were: in vitro or animal studies; narrative reviews or editorials or editorial letters; and articles published in other languages. Two investigators independently selected and evaluated systematic reviews. Three different instruments (AMSTAR, OQAQ and CASP) were used to evaluate methodological quality, and the results averaged. The GRADE instrument was used to evaluate the evidence grade within the reviews. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 211 reports; of which 2 were systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. The first review met 23.5 +/- 6.0% and the second met 77.5 +/- 12.8% of the methodological quality criteria (mean +/- sd). In these systematic reviews between 9 and 15% of the trials were graded as high quality, and 2 and 8% of the total number of patients were involved in these studies. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that in spite of the widespread impact of TMJD, and the multitude of potential interventions, clinicians have expended sparse attention to systematically implementing clinical trial methodology that would improve validity and reliability of outcome measures. With some 20 years of knowledge of evidence-based healthcare, the meager attention to these issues begins to raise ethical issues about TMJD trial conduct and clinical care.

Dataset Information

Comparing VA and Non-VA Quality of Care: A Systematic Review.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Comparing VA and Non-VA Quality of Care: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets