Dataset Information

An Electronic Medical Record-Derived Individualized Performance Metric to Measure Risk-Adjusted Adherence with Perioperative Prophylactic Bundles for Health Care Disparity Research and Implementation Science.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care disparity persists despite vigorous countermeasures. Clinician performance is paramount for equitable care processes and outcomes. However, precise and valid individual performance measures remain elusive.

Objectives

We sought to develop a generalizable, rigorous, risk-adjusted metric for individual clinician performance (MIP) derived directly from the electronic medical record (EMR) to provide visual, personalized feedback.

Methods

We conceptualized MIP as risk responsiveness, i.e., administering an increasing number of interventions contingent on patient risk. We embedded MIP in a hierarchical statistical model, reflecting contemporary nested health care delivery. We tested MIP by investigating the adherence with prophylactic bundles to reduce the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), retrieving PONV risk factors and prophylactic antiemetic interventions from the EMR. We explored the impact of social determinants of health on MIP.

Results

We extracted data from the EMR on 25,980 elective anesthesia cases performed at Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between June 3, 2018 and March 31, 2019. Limiting the data by anesthesia Current Procedural Terminology code and to complete cases with PONV risk and antiemetic interventions, we evaluated the performance of 83 anesthesia clinicians on 2,211 anesthesia cases. Our metric demonstrated considerable variance between clinicians in the adherence to risk-adjusted utilization of antiemetic interventions. Risk seemed to drive utilization only in few clinicians. We demonstrated the impact of social determinants of health on MIP, illustrating its utility for health science and disparity research.

Conclusion

The strength of our novel measure of individual clinician performance is its generalizability, as well as its intuitive graphical representation of risk-adjusted individual performance. However, accuracy, precision and validity, stability over time, sensitivity to system perturbations, and acceptance among clinicians remain to be evaluated.

SUBMITTER: Andreae MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7390620 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe robustness of record linkage evaluation measures is of high importance since linkage techniques are assessed based on these. However, minimal research has been conducted to evaluate the suitability of existing evaluation measures in the context of linking groups of records. Linkage quality is generally evaluated based on traditional measures such as precision and recall. As we show, these traditional evaluation measures are not suitable for evaluating groups of linked records because they evaluate the quality of individual record pairs rather than the quality of records grouped into clusters.ObjectivesWe set out to highlight the shortcomings of traditional evaluation measures and then propose a novel method to evaluate clustering quality in the context of group-based record linkage.MethodsThe proposed linkage evaluation method assesses how well individual records have been allocated into predicted groups/clusters with respect to ground-truth data. We first identify the best representative predicted cluster for each ground-truth cluster and, based on the resulting mapping, each record in a ground-truth cluster is assigned to one of seven categories. These categories reflect how well the linkage technique assigned records into groups.ResultsWe empirically evaluated our proposed method using real-world data and showed that it better reflects the quality of clusters generated by three group-based record linkage techniques. We also showed that traditional measures such as precision and recall can produce ambiguous results whereas our method does not.ConclusionsThe proposed evaluation method provides unambiguous results regarding the assessed group-based record linkage approaches. The method comprises of seven categories which reflect how each record was predicted, providing more detailed information about the quality of the linkage result. This will help to make better-informed decisions about which linkage technique is best suited for a given linkage application.

Project description:BackgroundTo build a consensus about learning objectives in the operating room, the aim of the study was to evaluate both surgical teacher and learner perspectives on perioperative teaching and learning in Taiwan.MethodsTwelve main technical and non-technical learning objectives in the operating room were evaluated by learners and surgical teachers in Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital. The learners included postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3 residents (junior learner, JL) and PGY 4-7 residents (senior learner, SL). The definition of learning preferences were recommended learning objectives, and learning load was defined as demands of learning preferences. During the survey, surgical teachers evaluated the learning preferences for the learner, and learners evaluated their learning preferences. The learners also evaluated the learning preferences that the surgical teachers should teach.ResultsResponse rate of the questionnaire was 65.4%. A total of 31 learners and 39 surgical teachers completed the survey. The consensus was that the need to increase the learning loads and ethical issues were the learning preferences for SL, and indications, details of procedure, and teamwork were important to both JL and SL. The teachers intended to set specific learning objectives for different learner levels, including (i) indications, details of procedure, teamwork, and postoperative care for both JL and SL; (ii) preoperative preparation, surgical anatomy, and instrument handling for JL (P = 0.022, 0.021 and 0.006); and (iii) surgical technique, independent practice, clinical reasoning, complications, and ethical issues for SL (P = 0.010, < 0.001, < 0.001, 0.001, 0.011). Resident perspective on learning objectives differed between JL and SL, and there was discrepancy between resident's learning as perceived by teachers, particularly in the JL.ConclusionsOur study revealed significant disparity of perspectives between teachers and learners on perioperative teaching and learning. Surgical teachers should set specific learning objectives for different learner levels, since junior and senior residents have different learning preferences even though both scrub in the same case. Effective communication between teachers and learners has the potential to improve learning experience and create a positive environment in the operating room.