Dataset Information

Association of Hospital Public Quality Reporting With Electronic Health Record Medication Safety Performance.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Despite billions spent in public investment, electronic health records (EHRs) have not delivered on the promise of large quality and safety improvement. Simultaneously, there is debate on whether public quality reporting is a useful tool to incentivize quality improvement.

Objective

To evaluate whether publicly reported feedback was associated with hospital improvement in an evaluation of medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) safety performance.

Design, settings, and participants

This nonrandomized controlled trial included US hospitals that participated in the Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) Evaluation Tool in the Leapfrog Hospital Survey, a national quality reporting program that evaluates safety performance of hospital CDS using simulated orders and patients, in 2017 to 2018. A sharp regression discontinuity design was used to identify the association of receiving negative feedback with hospital performance improvement in the subsequent year. Data were analyzed from January through September 2020.

Exposures

Publicly reported quality feedback.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcome was improvement from 2017 to 2018 on the Leapfrog CPOE Evaluation Tool, using regression discontinuity model estimates of the association of receiving negative publicly reported feedback with quality improvement.

Results

A total of 1183 hospitals were included, with a mean (SD) CPOE score of 59.3% (16.3%) at baseline. Hospitals receiving negative feedback improved 8.44 (95% CI, 0.09 to 16.80) percentage points more in the subsequent year compared with hospitals that received positive feedback on the same evaluation. This change was driven by differences in improvement in basic CDS capabilities (β = 8.71 [95%CI, 1.67 to 18.73]) rather than advanced CDS (β = 6.15 [95% CI, -9.11 to 26.83]).

Conclusions and relevance

In this nonrandomized controlled trial, publicly reported feedback was associated with quality improvement, suggesting targeted measurement and reporting of process quality may be an effective policy lever to encourage improvement in specific areas. Clinical decision support represents an important tool in ensuring patient safety and decreasing adverse drug events, especially for complex patients and those with multiple chronic conditions who often receive several different drugs during an episode of care.

SUBMITTER: Holmgren AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8456388 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of the study was to explore the impact of the implementation of an electronic prescribing and medication administration system (ePA) on the safety of medication administration in an inpatient hospital setting. Objectives were to compare the prevalence and types of: 1) medication administration errors, and 2) documentation discrepancies, between a paper and an ePA system. Additionally, we wanted to describe any observed changes to medication administration practices.The study was based on an elderly medicine ward in an English hospital. From December 2014 to June 2015, nurses' medication administration rounds were observed every 5 days before and after ePA implementation using an interrupted time-series approach. Medication administration error and documentation discrepancy rates pre- versus post-ePA were analysed descriptively and chi-squared tests used to test for any difference; segmented regression analysis was used to determine changes in longitudinal trend.Observations were made at 15 pre- and 15 post-ePA implementation time-points. Pre-ePA on paper, there were 18 medication administration errors in 428 opportunities for error (4.2%; 95% confidence interval 2.3-6.1%), and with ePA there were 18 in 528 (3.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9-5.0%; p = 0.64). Regarding documentation, pre-ePA on paper there were 5 discrepancies in 460 observed documentations (1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0%); with ePA there were 18 in 557 (3.2%; 95% confidence interval 1.8-4.7%; p = 0.04). The most common electronic documentation discrepancy was documentation that a dose had been administered when it had not. Segmented regression analysis was unable to detect any significant longitudinal changes. Changes to working practices post-ePA were observed, such as nurses demonstrating less-consistent self-checking when preparing and administering medications.Findings suggest no change in medication error rate, although ePA encourages certain types of errors and mitigates others. There was a statistically significant increase in documentation discrepancies which is likely to be due to adoption of new working practices with ePA.

Project description:We have established a certification system for antibodies to be used in chromatin immunoprecipitation assays coupled to massive parallel sequencing (ChIP-seq). This certification comprises a standardized ChIP procedure and the attribution of a numerical quality control indicator (QCi) to biological replicate experiments. The QCi computation is based on a universally applicable quality assessment that quantitates the global deviation of randomly sampled subsets of ChIP-seq dataset with the original genome-aligned sequence reads. Comparison with a QCi database for >28,000 ChIP-seq assays were used to attribute quality grades (ranging from âAAAâ to âDDDâ) to a given dataset. In the present report we used the numerical QC system to assess the factors influencing the quality of ChIP-seq assays, including the nature of the target, the sequencing depth and the commercial source of the antibody. We have used this approach specifically to certify mono and polyclonal antibodies obtained from Active Motif directed against the histone modification marks H3K4me3, H3K27ac and H3K9ac for ChIP-seq. The antibodies received the grades AAA to BBA (www.ngs-qc.org). We propose to attribute such quantitative grading of all antibodies attributed with the label âChIP-seq gradeâ. The NGS-QC team has setup a certification procedure for Antibodies dedicated to ChIP-seq applications based on (1)a highly reproducible pipeline for performing ChIP-seq assays including the use of an automated liquid handling platform (TECAN EVO75) for ChIP and sequencing library preparation steps and (2) the use of the NGS-QC Generator tool for providing a ChIP-seq quality grade and to evaluate other parameters like the Optimal sequencing depth, the degree of reproducibility among biological replicates and the comparison of the quality grades of the certified antibody with datasets retrieved in the public domain. This quality certification structure makes possible to assign a measured Quality Stamp to ChIP-seq grade Antibodies.

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) initiatives such as accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance are increasingly being implemented globally. In Flanders, Belgium, a government policy for acute-care hospitals incorporates aforementioned initiatives. Currently, questions are raised on the sustainability of the present policy.ObjectiveFirst, to summarise the various initiatives hospitals have adopted under government encouragement between 2008 and 2019. Second, to study the perspectives of healthcare stakeholders on current government policy.MethodsIn this multi-method study, we collected data on QI initiative implementation from governmental and institutional sources and through an online survey among hospital quality managers. We compiled an overview of QI initiative implementation for all Flemish acute-care hospitals between 2008 (n = 62) and 2019 (n = 53 after hospital mergers). Stakeholder perspectives were assessed via a second survey available to all healthcare employees and a focus group with healthcare policy experts was consulted. Variation between professions was assessed.ResultsQI initiatives have been increasingly implemented, especially from 2016 onwards, with the majority (87%) of hospitals having obtained a first accreditation label and all hospitals publicly reporting performance indicators, receiving regular inspections and having entered the pay-for-performance initiative. On the topic of external international accreditation, overall attitudes within the survey were predominantly neutral (36.2%), while 34.5% expressed positive and 29.3% negative views towards accreditation. In examining specific professional groups in-depth, we learned 58% of doctors regarded accreditation negatively, while doctors were judged to be the largest contributors to quality according to the majority of respondents.ConclusionsHospitals have demonstrated increased efforts into QI, especially since 2016, while perceptions on currently implemented QI initiatives among healthcare stakeholders are heterogeneous. To assure quality of care remains a top-priority for acute-care hospitals, we recommend a revision of the current multicomponent quality policy where the adoption of all initiatives is streamlined and co-created bottom-up.