Clinical Performance Measures Research Articles

Care Management Processes Important for High-Quality Diabetes Care.

Identify the improvement in diabetes performance measures and population-based clinical outcomes resulting from changes in care management processes (CMP) in primary care practices over 3 years. This repeated cross-sectional study tracked clinical performance measures for all diabetes patients seen in a cohort of 330 primary care practices in 2017 and 2019. Unit of analysis was patient-year with practice-level CMP exposures. Causal inference is based on dynamic changes in individual CMPs between years by practice. We used the Bayesian method to simultaneously estimate a five-outcome model: A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, guideline-based statin use, and Optimal Diabetes Care (ODC). We control for unobserved time-invariant practice characteristics and secular change. We modeled correlation of errors across outcomes. Statistical significance was identified using 99% Bayesian credible intervals (analogous to P < 0.01). Implementation of 18 of 62 CMPs was associated with statistically significant improvements in patient outcomes. Together, these resulted in 12.1% more patients meeting ODC performance measures. Different CMPs affected different outcomes. Three CMPs accounted for 47% of the total ODC improvement, 68% of A1c decrease, 21% of SBP reduction, and 55% of statin use increase: 1) systems for identifying and reminding patients due for testing, 2) after-visit follow-up by a nonclinician, and 3) guideline-based clinician reminders for preventive services during a clinic visit. Effective quality improvement in primary care focuses on practice redesign that clearly improves diabetes outcomes. Tailoring CMP adoption in primary care provides effective improvement in ODC performance through focused changes in diabetes outcomes.

TRainee Attributable & Automatable Care Evaluations in Real-time (TRACERs): A Scalable Approach for Linking Education to Patient Care.

Competency-based medical education (CBME) is an outcomes-based approach to education and assessment that focuses on what competencies trainees need to learn in order to provide effective patient care. Despite this goal of providing quality patient care, trainees rarely receive measures of their clinical performance. This is problematic because defining a trainee's learning progression requires measuring their clinical performance. Traditional clinical performance measures (CPMs) are often met with skepticism from trainees given their poor individual-level attribution. Resident-sensitive quality measures (RSQMs) are attributable to individuals, but lack the expeditiousness needed to deliver timely feedback and can be difficult to automate at scale across programs. In this eye opener, the authors present a conceptual framework for a new type of measure - TRainee Attributable & Automatable Care Evaluations in Real-time (TRACERs) - attuned to both automation and trainee attribution as the next evolutionary step in linking education to patient care. TRACERs have five defining characteristics: meaningful (for patient care and trainees), attributable (sufficiently to the trainee of interest), automatable (minimal human input once fully implemented), scalable (across electronic health records [EHRs] and training environments), and real-time (amenable to formative educational feedback loops). Ideally, TRACERs optimize all five characteristics to the greatest degree possible. TRACERs are uniquely focused on measures of clinical performance that are captured in the EHR, whether routinely collected or generated using sophisticated analytics, and are intended to complement (not replace) other sources of assessment data. TRACERs have the potential to contribute to a national system of high-density, trainee-attributable, patient-centered outcome measures.

Clinical Performance Measures for Emergency Department Care for Adults With Intracranial Hemorrhage

Though select inpatient-based performance measures exist for the care of patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, emergency departments lack measurement instruments designed to support and improve care processes in the hyperacute phase. To address this, we propose a set of measures applying a syndromic (rather than diagnosis-based) approach informed by performance data from a national sample of community EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network Stroke Initiative. To develop the measure set, we convened a workgroup of experts in acute neurologic emergencies. The group considered the appropriate use case for each proposed measure: internal quality improvement, benchmarking, or accountability, and examined data from Emergency Quality Network Stroke Initiative-participating EDs to consider the validity and feasibility of proposed measures for quality measurement and improvement applications. The initially conceived set included 14 measure concepts, of which 7 were selected for inclusion in the measure set after a review of data and further deliberation. Proposed measures include 2 for quality improvement, benchmarking, and accountability (Last 2 Recorded Systolic Blood Pressure Measurements Under 150 and Platelet Avoidance), 3 for quality improvement and benchmarking (Proportion of Patients on Oral Anticoagulants Receiving Hemostatic Medications, Median ED Length of Stay for admitted patients, and Median Length of Stay for transferred patients), and 2 for quality improvement only (Severity Assessment in the ED and Computed Tomography Angiography Performance). The proposed measure set warrants further development and validation to support broader implementation and advance national health care quality goals. Ultimately, applying these measures may help identify opportunities for improvement and focus quality improvement resources on evidence-based targets.

Abstract WP49: Clinical Performance Measures For Emergency Department Care For Adults With Nontraumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage

Study Objective: Though select inpatient-based performance measures exist for the care of patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), Emergency Departments (EDs) lack measurement instruments designed to support and improve care processes in the hyperacute phase. To address this, we propose a set of measures applying a syndromic (rather than diagnosis-based) approach informed by performance data from a national sample of community EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network Stroke Initiative (E-QUAL). Methods: We convened a workgroup of experts in acute neurologic emergencies. The group considered the appropriate use case for each proposed measure (internal quality improvement [QI], benchmarking, or accountability) and examined data from E-QUAL-participating EDs to consider the validity and feasibility of proposed measures. The initially conceived set included 14 measure concepts of which 7 were selected for inclusion in the measure set after review of data and further deliberation. To inform the process, we collected data from E-QUAL participating EDs. EDs used a web-based portal to submit data from chart reviews on patients with ICH during 2020-2021. Descriptive statistics characterize performance and identify variation. Results: Proposed measures include 2 for QI, benchmarking, and accountability, 3 for QI and benchmarking and 2 for QI only (Table). Of the E-QUAL participating EDs, 35 had sufficient case volume (≥25) and were included for review of preliminary performance data. Median annual ED volume was 44,000 (IQR 31,337-67,000) and 16 (48%) reported typically transferring patients with ICH. The Table includes available performance data. Conclusion: Application of these measures may identify opportunities for improvement and focus QI resources on evidence-based targets. The proposed measures warrant further development and validation to support broader implementation and advance national healthcare quality goals.

Addressing telehealth education in a family nurse practitioner program through simulation-based learning.

Telehealth usage increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care agencies responded by increasing existing platforms and implementing new telehealth platforms. Despite the demand, health care providers may have had little training in the telehealth care delivery model in the workplace or embedded in school. Based on educational theory, evidence, and best practice, the authors crafted a learning module that focused on telehealth medical skills followed by a summative standardized patient simulation. This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of the learning module and the summative simulation assessment. The learning module and the simulation provided a teaching strategy that resulted in an objective measurement of student clinical performance, which may be elusive in a traditional face-to-face practicum. Additionally, the simulation-based learning resulted in increased student satisfaction with simulation and increased self-confidence to apply the information in the clinical setting.

Clinical performance and quality measures for heart failure management in China: the China-Heart Failure registry study.

Heart failure (HF) remains a major public health problem with increasing prevalence in China. This study evaluated the clinical performance and quality measures for HF management to identify gaps in the standardization of care for patients hospitalized for HF in China. Following the results of China-HF stage I (2012-2015), the second stage of the China-HF was launched in 2017. Among 113 hospitals with ≥100 cases, the China-HF Stage II assessed the quality of care measures for HF and compared results with previous data in China and the US-based Get with The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registries. In total, 34938 patients hospitalized with HF were enrolled from January 2017 to October 2020. Echocardiographic left ventricular function and natriuretic peptide test were performed in 93.7% and 93.0% of the cases, respectively. Adherence to standardized guidelines in China-HF stage II was higher than that in the China-HF stage I, but generally lower than GWTG-HF registry with 78.2% of eligible patients was prescribed oral diuretics, 78.7% renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, and 82.2% beta-blockers. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization devices were implanted in 3.9% and 14.6%, respectively. In contrast, the proportion of eligible patients discharged with spironolactone (87.8%) was higher than GWTG-HF. The median length of hospitalization was 9 (6, 12) days, and 938 (2.8%) patients died or withdrew from treatment during hospitalization. Despite significant improvements in the use of guideline-recommended testing and therapy, there remain major gaps in quality of care for patients hospitalized for HF in China that are generally larger than gaps observed in the United States.

Adjusting for Patient Economic/Access Issues in a Hypertension Quality Measure

The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have proposed adjusting hypertension-related care quality measures by excluding patients with economic/access issues from the denominator of rate calculations. No research to date has explored the methods to operationalize this recommendation or how to measure economic/access issues. This study applied and compared different approaches to populating these denominator exceptions. Electronic health record data from 2019 were used in 2021 to calculate hypertension control rates in 84 community health centers. A total of 10 different indicators of patient economic/access barriers to care were used as denominator exclusions to calculate and then compare adjusted quality measure performance. Data came from a nonprofit health center‒controlled network that hosts a shared electronic health record for community health centers located in 22 states. A total of 5 of 10 measures yielded an increase in adjusted hypertension control rates in ≥50% of clinics (average rate increases of 0.7-3.71 percentage points). A total of 3 of 10 measures yielded a decrease in adjusted hypertension control rates in >50% of clinics (average rate decreases of 1.33-13.82 percentage points). A total of 5 measures resulted in excluding >50% of the clinic's patient population from quality measure assessments. Changes in clinic-level hypertension control rates after adjustment differed depending on the measure of economic/access issue. Regardless of the exclusion method, changes between baseline and adjusted rates were small. Removing community health center patients experiencing economic/access barriers from a hypertension control quality measure resulted in excluding a large proportion of patients, raising concerns about whether this calculation can be a meaningful measure of clinical performance.

Neurocritical Care Performance Measures Derived from Electronic Health Record Data are Feasible and Reveal Site-Specific Variation: A CHoRUS Pilot Project.

We evaluated the feasibility and discriminability of recently proposed Clinical Performance Measures for Neurocritical Care (Neurocritical Care Society) and Quality Indicators for Traumatic Brain Injury (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI;CENTER-TBI) extracted from electronic health record (EHR) flowsheet data. At three centers within the Collaborative Hospital Repository Uniting Standards(CHoRUS) for Equitable AI consortium, we examined consecutive neurocritical care admissions exceeding 24h (03/2015-02/2020) and evaluated the feasibility, discriminability, and site-specific variation of five clinical performance measures and quality indicators: (1) intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (ICPM) within 24h when indicated, (2) ICPM latency when initiated within 24h, (3) frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments, (4) intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCd) initiation within 24h, and (5) latency to IPCd application. We additionally explored associations between delayed IPCd initiation and codes for venous thromboembolism documented using the10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) system. Median (interquartile range) statistics are reported. Kruskal-Wallis tests were measured for differences across centers, and Dunn statistics were reported for between-center differences. A total of 14,985 admissions met inclusion criteria. ICPM was documented in 1514 (10.1%), neurologic assessments in 14,635 (91.1%), and IPCd application in 14,175 (88.5%). ICPM began within 24h for 1267 (83.7%), with site-specific latency differences among sites 1-3, respectively, (0.54h [2.82], 0.58h [1.68], and 2.36h [4.60]; p < 0.001). The frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments also varied by site (17.4 per day [5.97], 8.4 per day [3.12], and 15.3 per day [8.34]; p < 0.001) and diurnally (6.90 per day during daytime hours vs. 5.67 per day at night, p < 0.001). IPCds were applied within 24h for 12,863 (90.7%) patients meeting clinical eligibility (excluding those with EHR documentation of limiting injuries, actively documented as ambulating, or refusing prophylaxis). In-hospital venous thromboembolism varied by site (1.23%, 1.55%, and 5.18%; p < 0.001) and was associated with increased IPCd latency (overall, 1.02h [10.4] vs. 0.97h [5.98], p = 0.479; site 1, 2.25h [10.27] vs. 1.82h [7.39], p = 0.713; site 2, 1.38h [5.90] vs. 0.80h [0.53], p = 0.216; site 3, 0.40h [16.3] vs. 0.35h [11.5], p = 0.036). Electronic health record-derived reporting of neurocritical care performance measures is feasible and demonstrates site-specific variation. Future efforts should examine whether performance or documentation drives these measures, what outcomes are associated with performance, and whether EHR-derived measures of performance measures and quality indicators are modifiable.

The Reliability of Graduate Medical Education Quality of Care Clinical Performance Measures.

Graduate medical education (GME) program leaders struggle to incorporate quality measures in the ambulatory care setting, leading to knowledge gaps on how to provide feedback to residents and programs. While nationally collected quality of care data are available, their reliability for individual resident learning and for GME program improvement is understudied. To examine the reliability of the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) clinical performance measures in family medicine and internal medicine GME programs and to determine whether HEDIS measures can inform residents and their programs with their quality of care. From 2014 to 2017, we collected HEDIS measures from 566 residents in 8 family medicine and internal medicine programs under one sponsoring institution. Intraclass correlation was performed to establish patient sample sizes required for 0.70 and 0.80 reliability levels at the resident and program levels. Differences between the patient sample sizes required for reliable measurement and the actual patients cared for by residents were calculated. The highest reliability levels for residents (0.88) and programs (0.98) were found for the most frequently available HEDIS measure, colorectal cancer screening. At the GME program level, 87.5% of HEDIS measures had sufficient sample sizes for reliable measurement at alpha 0.7 and 75.0% at alpha 0.8. Most resident level measurements were found to be less reliable. GME programs may reliably evaluate HEDIS performance pooled at the program level, but less so at the resident level due to patient volume.

An intervention to improve the work system of neonatal resuscitation teams

BackgroundNeonatal resuscitation teams face unique challenges in the delivery of patient care. Our purpose was (a) to understand team challenges and then (b) to improve the work system. MethodsThe user-centred design process involved multiple iterations of requirements gathering, prototype design, evaluation, and redesign. Methods included (1) field observations, (2) interviews with neonatologists (n = 3) and neonatal nurses (n = 4), (3) tabletop evaluations with neonatal clinicians (N = 7), and (4) in-situ simulations (N = 12). ResultsThe intervention comprised the following four prototypes: (1) a four-page resuscitation recording form; (2) a procedural shelf attachment for the resuscitation trolley that provides additional space for sterile procedures; (3) an equipment turntable that allocates equipment layout into four sections that correspond with the steps of resuscitation; and (4) an A3-size display of the neonatal resuscitation algorithm. Simulation-based testing showed a moderate-to-high usability rating of 79.2 on the SUS (system usability scale). ConclusionsA multi-method approach provided (a) novel insight into ‘work as done’ challenges and (b) an intervention designed to address challenges within the work system. This project is an example of a systematic approach to quality improvement in a complex clinical work environment. Subsequent phases will evaluate the prototypes on teamwork and clinical performance measures.

The relationship of non-cognitive factors to academic and clinical performance in graduate rehabilitation science students in the United States: a systematic review

PurposeRehabilitation science programs utilize cognitive and non-cognitive factors to select students who can complete the didactic and clinical portions of the program and pass the licensure exam. Cognitive factors such a prior grade point average and standardized test scores are known to be predictive of academic performance, but the relationship of non-cognitive factors and performance is less clear. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the relationship of non-cognitive factors to academic and clinical performance in rehabilitation science programs.MethodsA search of 7 databases was conducted using the following eligibility criteria: graduate programs in physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, United States-based programs, measurement of at least 1 non-cognitive factor, measurement of academic and/or clinical performance, and quantitative reporting of results. Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text, and data were extracted.ResultsAfter the comprehensive screening, 21 articles were included in the review. Seventy-six percent of studies occurred in PT students. Grit, self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and stress were the most commonly studied factors. Only self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and personality traits were examined in clinical and academic contexts. The results were mixed for all non-cognitive factors. Higher grit and self-efficacy tended to be associated with better performance, while stress was generally associated with worse outcomes.ConclusionNo single non-cognitive factor was consistently related to clinical or academic performance in rehabilitation science students. There is insufficient evidence currently to recommend the evaluation of a specific non-cognitive factor for admissions decisions.

Mental rotation ability predicts the acquisition of basic endovascular skills

Due to the increasing complexity of diseases in the aging population and rapid progress in catheter-based technology, the demands on operators’ skills in conducting endovascular interventions (EI) has increased dramatically, putting more emphasis on training. However, it is not well understood which factors influence learning and performance. In the present study, we examined the ability of EI naïve medical students to acquire basic catheter skills and the role of pre-existing cognitive ability and manual dexterity in predicting performance. Nineteen medical students practised an internal carotid artery angiography during a three-day training on an endovascular simulator. Prior to the training they completed a battery of tests. Skill acquisition was assessed using quantitative and clinical performance measures; the outcome measures from the test battery were used to predict the learning rate. The quantitative metrics indicated that participants’ performance improved significantly across the training, but the clinical evaluation revealed that participants did not significantly improve on the more complex part of the procedure. Mental rotation ability (MRA) predicted quantitative, but not clinical performance. We suggest that MRA tests in combination with simulator sessions could be used to assess the trainee’s early competence level and tailor the training to individual needs.

Reported Clinical and Financial Performance of Hospitals With Physician CEOs Compared to Those With Nonphysician CEOs.

Little work has been done comparing the performance of hospitals with physician CEOs versus nonphysician CEOs, despite the ease of identifying this characteristic and extant leadership theories suggesting a relationship between technical expertise and success in leading highly technical organizations. We performed a detailed analysis of several widely accepted measures of clinical and financial performance across a randomly selected group of U.S. acute care hospitals with more than 40 beds and found no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The 30-day acute myocardial infarction mortality rate showed a positive statistically significant difference in the bivariate analysis (p < .001), but the effect was nullified in the multivariable regression analysis.

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 56 references Keywords: Quality of care, performance measure, quality improvement, clinical practice, sigma six, transparency

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 highly rendered figure, 3 tables, and 56 references.

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 56 references Keywords: Quality of care, performance measure, quality improvement, clinical practice, sigma six, transparency

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 56 references Keywords: Quality of care, performance measure, quality improvement, clinical practice, sigma six, transparency

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 highly rendered figure, 3 tables, and 56 references.

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 highly rendered figure, 3 tables, and 56 references.