Extent Of Improvement In Quality Research Articles

Optimizing clinical outcomes in polypharmacy through poly-de-prescribing: a longitudinal study.

To evaluate polypharmacy in older people to determine whether the number of medications de-prescribed correlates with the extent of improvement in quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes. A prospective longitudinal cohort study of polypharmacy in people living in a community in Israel. Participants aged 65 years or older who took at least six prescription drugs followed up for at least 3 years (range 3-10 years) after poly-de-prescription (PDP) recommendations. PDP recommended at first home visit using the Garfinkel algorithm. Annual follow-up and end-of-study questionnaires used to assess clinical outcomes, QoL, and satisfaction from de-prescribing. All medications taken, complications, hospitalizations, and mortality recorded. In total, 307 participants met the inclusion criteria; 25 incomplete end-of-study questionnaires meant 282 participants for subjective analysis. Participants divided into two subgroups: (i) those who discontinued more than 50% of the drugs (PDP group) or (ii) those who discontinued less than 50% of the drugs (non-responders, NR). Objective: 3-year survival rate and hospitalizations. Subjective: general satisfaction from de-prescribing; change in functional, mental, and cognitive status; improved sleep quality, appetite, and continence; and decreased pain. Mean age: 83 years (range 65-99 years). Mean number of drugs at baseline visit: 9.8 (range 6-20); 6.7 ± 2.0 de-prescribed in the PDP group (n = 146) and 2.2 ± 2.1 in the NR group (n = 161) (p < 0.001).No statistical difference between the groups in the 3-year survival rate and hospitalizations, but a significant improvement in functional and cognitive status and, in general, satisfaction from the intervention in the PDP group compared to the NR group. Improvement usually evident within the first 3 months and persists for several years. Poly-de-prescribing in the older population has beneficial effects on several clinical outcomes with no detrimental effect on the rate of hospitalization and survival. The extent of improvement correlates with the extent of de-prescribing. Applying the Garfinkel algorithm globally may improve QoL in millions of patients, a clinical and economic win-win situation.

Multiple Sclerosis Spastic Pain Relief Secondary to Medicinal Marijuana

A 57-year-old male presented to an outpatient Multiple Sclerosis (MS) clinic for excruciating spastic pain secondary to MS. After a trial of multiple pain management drugs with no success, he began a trial of marijuana. In this paper, we report the extent of improvement in quality of life secondary to cannabinoid use after failing multimodal pain management regimens.

The Importance of Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement in Low- and Middle-Income Settings

Purpose of ReviewThis review will discuss the importance of quality improvement in low- and middle-income settings as well as several potential barriers to these measures.Recent FindingsThere is substantial potential for growth in the field of quality improvement in low-resource settings. The extent of quality improvement (QI) research in low-resource settings is limited but expanding.SummaryPatient harm that is attributable to the costs of poor quality is a significant factor in all practice settings but is arguably of greater impact in limited-resource settings. Due to the recognized human, physical, and technological resource limitations in low- and middle-income countries, the delivery of quality healthcare can be variable in many settings, with discrepancies in evidence-based, evidence-informed, and customary care processes. Disparities in training and development of workforce providers exist in addition to limited availability of funding for QI research. Governmental, health ministry, and health system support is also variable. Attention to all of these areas is ultimately necessary to implement affordable and realistic quality improvement initiatives, education, training, and patient safety strategies that can mitigate harms, improve and establish more reliable outcomes, and develop a culture of safety to grow more sustainable and effective workforces and systems.

Determining the quality and effectiveness of surgical spine care: patient satisfaction is not a valid proxy

Background contextGiven the unsustainable costs of the US health-care system, health-care purchasers, payers, and hospital systems are adopting the concept of value-based purchasing by shifting care away from low-quality providers or hospitals. Legislation now allows public reporting of these quality rankings. True measures of quality, such as surgical morbidity and validated questionnaires of effectiveness, are burdensome and costly to collect. Hence, patients' satisfaction with care has emerged as a commonly used metric as a proxy for quality because of its feasibility of collection. However, patient satisfaction metrics have yet to be validated as a measure of overall quality of surgical spine care. PurposeWe set out to determine whether patient satisfaction is a valid measure of safety and effectiveness of care in a prospective longitudinal spine registry. Study designProspective longitudinal cohort study. Patient populationAll patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions over a 6-month period at a single medical center. Outcome measuresPatient-reported outcome instruments (numeric rating scale [NRS], Oswestry disability index [ODI], neck disability index [NDI], short-form 12-item survey [SF-12], Euro-Qol-5D [EQ-5D], Zung depression scale, and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire [MSPQ] anxiety scale), return to work, patient satisfaction with outcome, and patient satisfaction with provider care. MethodsAll patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions over a 6-month period at a single medical center were enrolled into a prospective longitudinal registry. Data collected on all patients included demographics, disease characteristics, treatment variables, readmissions/reoperations, and all 90-day surgical morbidity. Patient-reported outcome instruments (NRS, ODI, NDI, SF-12, EQ-5D, Zung depression scale, and MSPQ anxiety scale), return to work, patient satisfaction with outcome, and patient satisfaction with provider care were recorded at baseline and 3 months after treatment. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine whether extent of improvement in quality of life (SF-12 physical component summary [PCS]) and disability (ODI/NDI) accurately predicted patient satisfaction versus dissatisfaction. Standard interpretation of area under the curve (AUC) was used: less than 0.7, poor; 0.7 to 0.8, fair; and greater than 0.8, good accuracy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine if surgical morbidity (quality) or improvement in disability and quality of life (effectiveness of care) were independently associated with patient satisfaction. ResultsFour hundred twenty-two (84%) patients completed all questionnaires 3 months after surgery during the reviewed time period (mean age 55±14 years). Lumbar surgery was performed in 287 (68%) and cervical surgery in 135 (32%) patients. There were 51 (12.1%) 90-day complications, including 21 (5.0%) readmissions and 12 (2.8%) return to operating room. Three hundred fifty-eight (84.8%) patients were satisfied with provider care and 288 (68.2%) with their outcome. Satisfaction with provider care: In ROC analyses, extent of improvement in quality of life (SF-12) and disability (ODI/NDI) differentiated satisfaction versus dissatisfaction with care with very poor accuracy (AUC 0.49–0.69). In regression analysis, 3-month morbidity (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.45 [0.79–2.66]), readmission (0.66 [0.24–1.80]), improvement in quality of life (SF-12 PCS), or improvement in general health (health transition index) were not associated with satisfaction with care. Satisfaction with outcome: In ROC analyses, improvement in quality of life (SF-12) and disability (ODI/NDI) failed to differentiate satisfaction with good accuracy (AUC 0.76). Neither 90-day morbidity (1.05 [0.46–2.34]) nor 90-day readmission (0.27 [0.04–2.04]) was associated with satisfaction with outcome in regression analysis. ConclusionsPatient satisfaction is not a valid measure of overall quality or effectiveness of surgical spine care. Patient satisfaction metrics likely represent the patient's subjective contentment with health-care service, a distinct aspect of care. Satisfaction metrics are important patient-centered measures of health-care service but should not be used as a proxy for overall quality, safety, or effectiveness of surgical spine care.