Hospital-level compliance with the commission on cancer's quality of care measures and the association with patient survival.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Quality measurement has become a priority for national healthcare reform, and valid measures are necessary to discriminate hospital performance and support value-based healthcare delivery. The Commission on Cancer (CoC) is the largest cancer-specific accreditor of hospital quality in the United States and has implemented Quality of Care Measures to evaluate cancer care delivery. However, none has been formally tested as a valid metric for assessing hospital performance based on actual patient outcomes.Methods
Eligibility and compliance with the Quality of Care Measures are reported within the National Cancer Database, which also captures data for robust patient-level risk adjustment. Hospital-level compliance was calculated for the core measures, and the association with patient survival was tested using Cox regression.Results
Seven hundred sixty-eight thousand nine hundred sixty-nine unique cancer cases were included from 1323 facilities. Increasing hospital-level compliance was associated with improved survival for only two measures, including a 35% reduced risk of mortality for the gastric cancer measure G15RLN (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72) and a 19% reduced risk of mortality for the colon cancer measure 12RLN (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.85). For the lung cancer measure LNoSurg, increasing compliance was paradoxically associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08-1.20). For the remaining measures, hospital-level compliance demonstrated no consistent association with patient survival.Conclusion
Hospital-level compliance with the CoC's Quality of Care Measures is not uniformly aligned with patient survival. In their current form, these measures do not reliably discriminate hospital performance and are limited as a tool for value-based healthcare delivery.
SUBMITTER: Nussbaum DP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8178497 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEvaluations of the impact of hospital accreditation have been previously hampered by the lack of nationally standardized data. One way to assess this impact is to compare accreditation status with other evidence-based measures of quality, such as the process measures now publicly reported by The Joint Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).ObjectivesTo examine the association between Joint Commission accreditation status and both absolute measures of, and trends in, hospital performance on publicly reported quality measures for common diseases.Design, setting, and patientsPerformance data for 2004 and 2008 from U.S. acute care and critical access hospitals were obtained using publicly available CMS Hospital Compare data augmented with Joint Commission performance data.MeasurementsChanges in hospital performance between 2004 and 2008, and percent of hospitals with 2008 performance exceeding 90% for 16 measures of quality-of-care and 4 summary scores.ResultsHospitals accredited by The Joint Commission tended to have better baseline performance in 2004 than non-accredited hospitals. Accredited hospitals had larger gains over time, and were significantly more likely to have high performance in 2008 on 13 out of 16 standardized clinical performance measures and all summary scores.ConclusionsWhile Joint Commission-accredited hospitals already outperformed non-accredited hospitals on publicly reported quality measures in the early days of public reporting, these differences became significantly more pronounced over 5 years of observation. Future research should examine whether accreditation actually promotes improved performance or is a marker for other hospital characteristics associated with such performance. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011;6:458-465. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine.
| S-EPMC3265714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:CONTEXT: Patient safety indicators (PSIs) are screening tools that use administrative data to identify potential complications of care and are being increasingly used as measures of hospital safety. It is unknown whether PSIs are related to standard quality metrics. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between select PSIs and measures of hospital quality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the 2003 MedPAR dataset to examine the performance of 4,504 acute-care hospitals on four medical PSIs among Medicare enrollees. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used bivariate and multivariate techniques to examine the relationship between PSI performance and quality scores from the Hospital Quality Alliance program, risk-adjusted mortality rates, and selection as a top hospital by US News & World Report. RESULTS: We found inconsistent and usually poor associations among the PSIs and other hospital quality measures with the exception of "failure to rescue," which was consistently associated with better performance on all quality measures tested. For example, hospitals in the top quartile of failure to rescue performance had a 0.9% better summary performance score in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) processes and a 22% lower mortality rate in AMI compared to hospitals in the bottom quartile of failure to rescue (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). Death in low mortality DRG, decubitus ulcer, and infection due to medical care generally had poor or often inverse relationships with the other quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of failure to rescue, we found poor or inverse relationships between PSIs and other measures of healthcare quality. Whether the lack of relationship is due to the limitations of the PSIs is unknown, but suggests that PSIs need further validation before they are employed broadly.
| S-EPMC2518036 | biostudies-other
Project description:Evaluation of patients' health care experiences is central to measuring patient-centred care. However, different instruments tend to be used at the hospital or departmental level but rarely both, leading to a lack of standardization of patient experience measures.To validate the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) Inpatient Hospital Care for use on both department and hospital levels.Using cross-sectional observational data, we investigated the internal validity of the questionnaire using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and the generalizability of the questionnaire for use at the department and hospital levels using generalizability theory.22924 adults hospitalized for ?24 hours between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014 in 23 Dutch hospitals (515 department evaluations).CQI Inpatient Hospital Care questionnaire.CFA results showed a good fit on individual level (CFI=0.96, TLI=0.95, RMSEA=0.04), which was comparable between specialties. When scores were aggregated to the department level, the fit was less desirable (CFI=0.83, TLI=0.81, RMSEA=0.06), and there was a significant overlap between communication with doctors and explanation of treatment subscales. Departments and hospitals explained ?5% of total variance in subscale scores. In total, 4-8 departments and 50 respondents per department are needed to reliably evaluate subscales rated on a 4-point scale, and 10 departments with 100-150 respondents per department for binary subscales.The CQI Inpatient Hospital Care is a valid and reliable questionnaire to evaluate inpatient experiences in Dutch hospitals provided sufficient sampling is done. Results can facilitate meaningful comparisons and guide quality improvement activities in individual departments and hospitals.
| S-EPMC5600232 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient experience measures are widely used to compare performance at the individual physician level. OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of unmeasured patient characteristics on visit-level patient experience measures and the sample sizes required to reliably measure patient experience at the primary care physician (PCP) level. DESIGN:Repeated cross-sectional design. SETTING:Academic family medicine practice in California. PARTICIPANTS:One thousand one hundred forty-one adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 PCPs (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians). MEASUREMENTS:Post-visit patient experience surveys including patient measures used for standard adjustment as recommend by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Consortium and additional patient characteristics used for expanded adjustment (including attitudes toward healthcare, global life satisfaction, patient personality, current symptom bother, and marital status). RESULTS:The amount of variance in patient experience explained doubled with expanded adjustment for patient characteristics compared with standard adjustment (R2 = 20.0% vs. 9.6%, respectively). With expanded adjustment, the amount of variance attributable to the PCP dropped from 6.1% to 3.4% and the required sample size to achieve a reliability of 0.90 in the physician-level patient experience measure increased from 138 to 255 patients per physician. After ranking of the 56 PCPs by average patient experience, 8 were reclassified into or out of the top or bottom quartiles of average experience with expanded as compared to standard adjustment [14.3% (95% CI: 7.0-25.2%)]. CONCLUSIONS:Widely used methods for measuring PCP-level patient experience may not account sufficiently for influential patient characteristics. If methods were adapted to account for these characteristics, patient sample sizes for reliable between-physician comparisons may be too large for most practices to obtain.
| S-EPMC5698229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public reporting of quality is considered a key strategy for stimulating improvement efforts at US hospitals; however, little is known about the attitudes of hospital leaders toward existing quality measures.To describe US hospital leaders' attitudes toward hospital quality measures found on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare website, assess use of these measures for quality improvement, and examine the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital quality performance.We mailed a 21-item questionnaire from January 1 through September 31, 2012, to senior hospital leaders from a stratified random sample of 630 US hospitals, including equal numbers with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected performance on mortality and readmission measures.We assessed levels of agreement with statements concerning quality measures, examined use of measures for improvement activities, and analyzed the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital performance.Of 630 hospitals surveyed, 380 (60.3%) responded. For each of the mortality, readmission, process, and patient experience measures, more than 70% of hospitals agreed with the statement that "public reporting stimulates quality improvement activity at my institution"; agreement for measures of cost and volume was 65.2% and 53.3%, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for the statement that "our hospital is able to influence performance on this measure"; agreement for processes of care and patient experience measures was 96.4% and 94.2%, respectively. A total of 89.7% of hospitals agreed that the hospital's reputation was influenced by patient experience measures; agreement was 77.4% for mortality, 69.9% for readmission, 76.3% for process measures, 66.1% for cost measures, and 54.0% for volume measures. A total of 87.1% of hospitals reported incorporating performance on publicly reported measures into their hospital's annual goals, whereas 90.2% reported regularly reviewing the results with the hospital's board of trustees and 94.3% with senior clinical and administrative leaders. When compared with chief executive officers and chief medical officers, respondents who identified themselves as chief quality officers or vice presidents of quality were less likely to agree that public reporting stimulates quality improvement and that measured differences are large enough to differentiate among hospitals.Hospital leaders indicated that the measures reported on the Hospital Compare website exert strong influence over local planning and improvement efforts. However, they expressed concerns about the clinical meaningfulness, unintended consequences, and methods of public reporting.
| S-EPMC4250277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore factors that may influence use of comparative public reports for hospital maternity care.Data sourcesFour focus groups conducted in 2013 with 41 women and preintervention survey data collected in 2014 to 2015 from 245 pregnant women in North Carolina.Study designAs part of a larger randomized controlled trial, we conducted qualitative formative research to develop an intervention that will be evaluated through pre- and postintervention surveys.Data extraction methodsAnalysis of focus group transcripts examined participants' perceptions of high-quality maternity care and the importance of different quality measures. Quantitative analysis included descriptive results of the preintervention survey and subgroup analyses to examine the impact of race, education, and being a first-time mom on outcomes.Principal findingsWhen describing high-quality maternity care, participants focused on interactions with providers, including respect for preferences and communication. The importance of quality measures was influenced by the extent to which they focused on babies' health, were perceived as the hospital's responsibility, and were perceived as representing "standard care." At baseline, 28 percent of survey respondents had used quality information to choose a hospital. Survey respondents were more aware of some quality measures (e.g., breastfeeding support) than others (e.g., episiotomy rates).ConclusionsPublic reporting efforts could help increase relevance of maternity care quality measures by creating measures that reflect women's concerns, clearly explaining the hospital's role in supporting quality care, and showing how available quality measures can inform decisions about childbirth.
| S-EPMC4874945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeQuality measures represent the standards of appropriate treatment agreed upon by experts in the field and often supported by data. The extent to which providers in the community adhere to quality measures in radiation therapy (RT) is unknown.Methods and materialsThe Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012. Patients completed surveys and medical records were reviewed. Patients were risk-stratified according to D'Amico classification criteria. Patterns of care and compliance with 8 quality measures as endorsed by national consortia as of 2011 were assessed.ResultsOverall, 926 men underwent definitive RT (69% external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]), 17% brachytherapy (BT), and 14% combined EBRT and BT with considerable variation in radiation techniques across risk groups. Most men who received EBRT had dose-escalated EBRT (>75 Gy; 93%) delivered with conventional fractionation (<2 Gy; 95%), intensity modulated RT (76%), and image guided RT (85%). Most men treated with BT received I125 (77%). Overall, 73% of the men received EBRT that was compliant with the quality measures (dose-escalation, image-guidance, appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy, and appropriate treatment target) but only 60% of men received BT that was compliant with quality measures (postimplant dosimetry and appropriate dose). African-American men (64%) and other minorities (62%) were less likely than white men (77%) to receive EBRT that was compliant with quality measures.ConclusionsMost men who received RT for localized prostate cancer were treated with an appropriately high dose and received image guidance and intensity modulated RT. However, compliance with some nationally recognized quality measures was relatively low and varied by race. There are significant opportunities to improve the delivery of RT and especially for men of a minority race.
| S-EPMC7492101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResults of associations between process and mortality indicators, both used for the external assessment of hospital care quality or public reporting, differ strongly across studies. However, most of those studies were conducted in North America or United Kingdom. Providing new evidence based on French data could fuel the international debate on quality of care indicators and help inform French policy-makers. The objective of our study was to explore whether optimal care delivery in French hospitals as assessed by their Hospital Process Indicators (HPIs) is associated with low Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratios (HSMRs).MethodsThe French National Authority for Health (HAS) routinely collects for each hospital located in France, a set of mandatory HPIs. Five HPIs were selected among the process indicators collected by the HAS in 2009. They were measured using random samples of 60 to 80 medical records from inpatients admitted between January 1st, 2009 and December 31, 2009 in respect with some selection criteria. HSMRs were estimated at 30, 60 and 90 days post-admission (dpa) using administrative health data extracted from the national health insurance information system (SNIIR-AM) which covers 77% of the French population. Associations between HPIs and HSMRs were assessed by Poisson regression models corrected for measurement errors with a simulation-extrapolation (SIMEX) method.ResultsMost associations studied were not statistically significant. Only two process indicators were found associated with HSMRs. Completeness and quality of anesthetic records was negatively associated with 30 dpa HSMR (0.72 [0.52-0.99]). Early detection of nutritional disorders was negatively associated with all HSMRs: 30 dpa HSMR (0.71 [0.54-0.95]), 60 dpa HSMR (0.51 [0.39-0.67]) and 90 dpa HSMR (0.52 [0.40-0.68]).ConclusionIn absence of gold standard of quality of care measurement, the limited number of associations suggested to drive in-depth improvements in order to better determine associations between process and mortality indicators. A smart utilization of both process and outcomes indicators is mandatory to capture aspects of the hospital quality of care complexity.
| S-EPMC5568353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During acute stroke care, rehabilitation usage may be influenced by patient- and hospital-related factors. We would like to identify patient- and hospital-level determinants of population-level inpatient rehabilitation usage associated with acute stroke care.From data obtained from the claim information from the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) in Taiwan (2009-2011), we enrolled 82,886 stroke patients with intracerebral hemorrhage and cerebral infarction from 207 hospitals. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) analyses with patient-level factors specified as random effects were conducted (for cross-level interactions).The rate of rehabilitation usage was 51% during acute stroke care. The hospital-related factors accounted for a significant amount of variability (intraclass correlation, 50%). Hospital type was the only significant hospital-level variable and can explain the large amount of variability (58%). Patients treated in smaller hospitals experienced few benefits of rehabilitation services, and those with surgery in a smaller hospital used fewer rehabilitation services. All patient-level variables were significant.With GLMM analyses, we identified the hospital type and its cross-level interaction, and explained a large portion of variability in rehabilitation for stroke patients in Taiwan.
| S-EPMC4902513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The extent to which patient experiences with hospital care are related to other measures of hospital quality and safety is unknown. METHODS; We examined the relationship between Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores and technical measures of quality and safety using service-line specific data in 927 hospitals. We used data from the Hospital Quality Alliance to assess technical performance in medical and surgical processes of care and calculated Patient Safety Indicators to measure medical and surgical complication rates.The overall rating of the hospital and willingness to recommend the hospital had strong relationships with technical performance in all medical conditions and surgical care (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.15 to 0.63; p<.05 for all). Better patient experiences for each measure domain were associated with lower decubitus ulcer rates (correlations -0.17 to -0.35; p<.05 for all), and for at least some domains with each of the other assessed complications, such as infections due to medical care.Patient experiences of care were related to measures of technical quality of care, supporting their validity as summary measures of hospital quality. Further study may elucidate implications of these relationships for improving hospital care.
| S-EPMC2910567 | biostudies-literature