Stimulate Quality Improvement Research Articles

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation.

6593 Background: To date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included. Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging. Results: Of the 8,173 patients receiving SACT in the adjuvant setting, 2,074 (25%) had a toxicity with adjusted hospital-level rates varying from 11% to 49%. Of the 7,683 patients receiving SACT in the metastatic setting, 3,625 (47%) had a toxicity with adjusted hospital-level rates varying from 25% to 67%. Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than 2 standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. Similarly, in the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite comprehensive risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to enhance care.

Dampak Implementasi Pembayaran Berbasis Kinerja (Pay-For-Performance) Pada Fasilitas Kesehatan Tingkat Pertama (FKTP) Terhadap Kualitas Layanan Kesehatan Di Berbagai Negara

The pay-for-performance (P4P) mechanism is a strategy in the health sector to increase the availability, quality and utilization of health services. In P4P, incentives are given after achieving a series of agreed outcomes by improving the performance of health workers in health facilities. This literature review was conducted with the aim of knowing the impact of implementing pay-for-performance at primary care (FKTP) on the quality of health services in various countries. The method is carried out by searching several databases, namely Pubmed, Embase, and Proquest with the main intervention being the implementation of pay-for-performance. The results of the review focused on the impact of implementing pay-for-performance at First Level Health Facilities on the quality of health services in various countries. From this study it can be concluded that pay-for-performance has been used in various countries with different numbers and areas (domains) of indicators adapted to the characteristics of primary care in a country. Some of the benefits of implementing pay-for-performance are that it can stimulate quality improvement in clinical care and improve patient experience of the role of general practitioners and the system of care. P4P can improve the process and outcome of cardiovascular treatment. Providing incentives can have an effect on improving the quality of performance in clinical practice. Providing P4P incentives can meet the quality measures of hypertension care recommended by the guidelines. In the United States, the provision of P4P incentives can increase physician compliance to provide hypertension drugs according to guidelines. Providing incentives can also have an impact on improving blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

Are we delivering high-quality medical oncology care? A national comparison of severe acute toxicity from systemic anti-cancer therapy

BackgroundIn the precision medicine era the complexity of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery and their associated toxicities have also increased. However, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality. MethodsAll colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included.Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and first-line metastatic settings. Results8,173 patients received SACT in the adjuvant setting, and 7,683 patients in the first-line metastatic setting. Adjusted severe acute toxicity rates varied between hospitals from 11% to 49% for the adjuvant cohort, and from 25% to 67% for the metastatic cohort.Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than 2 standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. In the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate.Overall, 12 hospitals (12%) had toxicity rates more than 2SD above the national mean, and 11 (10%) had rates more than 2SD below. ConclusionThere is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite risk-adjustment. Ongoing national public reporting of this performance indicator can be used investigate reasons for variation in toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to improve care. This may include increasing centralisation of SACT care delivery to minimise variation. This approach can be applied across different cancer types and in many different countries where similar regional or national clinical and administrative hospital datasets are available.

The Swedish Neonatal Network for outcomes improvement

: A vision for Swedish neonatal care is that all newborn infants receive the care they need, when they need it, that the experience is excellent for all families, and that neonatal care is executed by the highest quality and safety standards. To support this vision, the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register (SNQ) was founded with a mission to provide stake holders, professionals and the public with data and knowledge that would stimulate quality improvement (QI), research and development in neonatal care. SNQ covers all infants admitted to all 37 neonatal units (level I–III) serving the approximately 115,000 annual births in Sweden. Quality indicators include capacity and availability (number of beds, staffing, equipment), process (interventions) and outcome (survival and morbidity) measures for medical as well as nursing care. To better understand how neonatal care is associated with long-term outcome, the results of a national follow-up program at 2- and 5½-year-of-age are also reported to SNQ. In addition, parental experiences of neonatal care have recently become an integrated part of the database. SNQ’s completeness and validity, especially for preterm infants, has been found to be excellent. SNQ is therefore used as a tool for benchmarking over time and between unit and regions. Robust data from more than 230,000 neonatal admissions are available. Besides stimulating a continuously increasing number of clinical research projects, the data from SNQ has been found useful by Swedish authorities, professional and stakeholder organizations, local hospital administrations, teachers, as well as by the attending team in the neonatal unit. The most recent development with daily data collection in >95% of all admissions opens for new and more dynamic insights into the course of several neonatal conditions, as well as for timely outreach of results.

How should healthcare be reported in Catalonia? Qualitative study with healthcare leaders

BackgroundThe Results Centre is the name of a project that, since 2012, has been openly publishing the results of each healthcare centre in Catalonia, with the idea of promoting benchmarking among centres and transparency toward society. As the project evolves, it has become increasingly necessary to adapt its contents and formats. The objective of this study is to identify the preferences and expectations of healthcare leaders regarding the Results Centre.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted using the nominal group technique. Five nominal groups were created with the participation of 58 professionals (26 from hospital care, 16 from primary care, and 16 from long-term care centres). The areas of analysis were: (1) what the Results Centre of the future should be like; (2) what information needs should be addressed; and (3) what novelties should be incorporated to stimulate quality improvement. The spontaneity of ideas, intensity of recommendations, and intergroup consistency were analysed. The study was conducted in April 2019.ResultsThe requirements reported by the participants to be met by the Results Centre included: being a tool for benchmarking and strategic decision-making; adjusted and segmented indicators; non-clinical information (patient experience, socio-economic status, etc.); and data accessible to all stakeholders, including citizens. The ideas were consistent across the different levels of care, although the intensity of recommendations varied depending on their content.ConclusionsRegional agencies that are accountable for health outcomes should be consistently committed to adapting to the needs of different stakeholders in the health system. This project is an example of how this requirement has been addressed in Catalonia.

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation

AimTo date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality. MethodsAll colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included.Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging. ResultsEight thousand one hundred and seventy three patients received SACT in the adjuvant setting, and 7,683 patients in the metastatic setting. Adjusted severe acute toxicity rates varied between hospitals from 11% to 49% for the adjuvant cohort, and from 25% to 67% for the metastatic cohort.Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than two standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. In the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate.Overall, 12 hospitals (12%) had toxicity rates more than 2SD above the national mean, and 11 (10%) had rates more than 2SD below. ConclusionThere is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to improve care.

Design and evaluation of an interactive quality dashboard for national clinical audit data: a realist evaluation

BackgroundNational audits aim to reduce variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement. However, varying provider engagement with audit data means that this is not being realised.AimThe aim of the study was to develop and evaluate a quality dashboard (i.e. QualDash) to support clinical teams’ and managers’ use of national audit data.DesignThe study was a realist evaluation and biography of artefacts study.SettingThe study involved five NHS acute trusts.Methods and resultsIn phase 1, we developed a theory of national audits through interviews. Data use was supported by data access, audit staff skilled to produce data visualisations, data timeliness and quality, and the importance of perceived metrics. Data were mainly used by clinical teams. Organisational-level staff questioned the legitimacy of national audits. In phase 2, QualDash was co-designed and the QualDash theory was developed. QualDash provides interactive customisable visualisations to enable the exploration of relationships between variables. Locating QualDash on site servers gave users control of data upload frequency. In phase 3, we developed an adoption strategy through focus groups. ‘Champions’, awareness-raising through e-bulletins and demonstrations, and quick reference tools were agreed. In phase 4, we tested the QualDash theory using a mixed-methods evaluation. Constraints on use were metric configurations that did not match users’ expectations, affecting champions’ willingness to promote QualDash, and limited computing resources. Easy customisability supported use. The greatest use was where data use was previously constrained. In these contexts, report preparation time was reduced and efforts to improve data quality were supported, although the interrupted time series analysis did not show improved data quality. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, revealing positive perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. In phase 5, the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of QualDash was assessed. Interviews were undertaken to understand how QualDash could be revised to support a region-wide Gold Command. Requirements included multiple real-time data sources and functionality to help to identify priorities.ConclusionsAudits seeking to widen engagement may find the following strategies beneficial: involving a range of professional groups in choosing metrics; real-time reporting; presenting ‘headline’ metrics important to organisational-level staff; using routinely collected clinical data to populate data fields; and dashboards that help staff to explore and report audit data. Those designing dashboards may find it beneficial to include the following: ‘at a glance’ visualisation of key metrics; visualisations configured in line with existing visualisations that teams use, with clear labelling; functionality that supports the creation of reports and presentations; the ability to explore relationships between variables and drill down to look at subgroups; and low requirements for computing resources. Organisations introducing a dashboard may find the following strategies beneficial: clinical champion to promote use; testing with real data by audit staff; establishing routines for integrating use into work practices; involving audit staff in adoption activities; and allowing customisation.LimitationsThe COVID-19 pandemic stopped phase 4 data collection, limiting our ability to further test and refine the QualDash theory. Questionnaire results should be treated with caution because of the small, possibly biased, sample. Control sites for the interrupted time series analysis were not possible because of research and development delays. One intervention site did not submit data. Limited uptake meant that assessing the impact on more measures was not appropriate.Future workThe extent to which national audit dashboards are used and the strategies national audits use to encourage uptake, a realist review of the impact of dashboards, and rigorous evaluations of the impact of dashboards and the effectiveness of adoption strategies should be explored.Study registrationThis study is registered as ISRCTN18289782.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review

BackgroundBenchmarking has been recognised as a valuable method to help identify strengths and weaknesses at all levels of the healthcare system. Despite a growing interest in the practice and study of benchmarking, its contribution to quality of care have not been well elucidated. As such, we conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of synthesizing the evidence regarding the relationship between benchmarking and quality improvement. We also sought to provide evidence on the associated strategies that can be used to further stimulate quality improvement.MethodsWe searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) for articles studying the impact of benchmarking on quality of care (processes and outcomes). Following assessment of the articles for inclusion, we conducted data analysis, quality assessment and critical synthesis according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic literature review.ResultsA total of 17 articles were identified. All studies reported a positive association between the use of benchmarking and quality improvement in terms of processes (N = 10), outcomes (N = 13) or both (N = 7). In the majority of studies (N = 12), at least one intervention, complementary to benchmarking, was undertaken to stimulate quality improvement. The interventions ranged from meetings between participants to quality improvement plans and financial incentives. A combination of multiple interventions was present in over half of the studies (N = 10).ConclusionsThe results generated from this review suggest that the practice of benchmarking in healthcare is a growing field, and more research is needed to better understand its effects on quality improvement. Furthermore, our findings indicate that benchmarking may stimulate quality improvement, and that interventions, complementary to benchmarking, seem to reinforce this improvement. Although this study points towards the benefit of combining performance measurement with interventions in terms of quality, future research should further analyse the impact of these interventions individually.

Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020).

Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence. Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care. Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences. The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.

Exploring variation in the use of feedback from national clinical audits: a realist investigation

BackgroundNational Clinical Audits (NCAs) are a well-established quality improvement strategy used in healthcare settings. Significant resources, including clinicians’ time, are invested in participating in NCAs, yet there is variation in the extent to which the resulting feedback stimulates quality improvement. The aim of this study was to explore the reasons behind this variation.MethodsWe used realist evaluation to interrogate how context shapes the mechanisms through which NCAs work (or not) to stimulate quality improvement. Fifty-four interviews were conducted with doctors, nurses, audit clerks and other staff working with NCAs across five healthcare providers in England. In line with realist principles we scrutinised the data to identify how and why providers responded to NCA feedback (mechanisms), the circumstances that supported or constrained provider responses (context), and what happened as a result of the interactions between mechanisms and context (outcomes). We summarised our findings as Context+Mechanism = Outcome configurations.ResultsWe identified five mechanisms that explained provider interactions with NCA feedback: reputation, professionalism, competition, incentives, and professional development. Professionalism and incentives underpinned most frequent interaction with feedback, providing opportunities to stimulate quality improvement. Feedback was used routinely in these ways where it was generated from data stored in local databases before upload to NCA suppliers. Local databases enabled staff to access data easily, customise feedback and, importantly, the data were trusted as accurate, due to the skills and experience of staff supporting audit participation. Feedback produced by NCA suppliers, which included national comparator data, was used in a more limited capacity across providers. Challenges accessing supplier data in a timely way and concerns about the quality of data submitted across providers were reported to constrain use of this mode of feedback.ConclusionThe findings suggest that there are a number of mechanisms that underpin healthcare providers’ interactions with NCA feedback. However, there is variation in the mode, frequency and impact of these interactions. Feedback was used most routinely, providing opportunities to stimulate quality improvement, within clinical services resourced to collect accurate data and to maintain local databases from which feedback could be customised for the needs of the service.

Strategies to Increase Pneumococcal Vaccination in Veterans: An Integrative Review.

The current integrative review aimed to explore the extent to which pneumococcal pneumonia impacts the Veteran population and strategies to increase pneumococcal vaccination in this population. The search strategy began with three electronic databases (CINAHL, PubMed, and Embase). After analysis of 50 studies, considering inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine studies were selected for final analysis. Three primary themes emerged from the literature: (a) decreased 1-year morbidity and mortality in Veterans with comorbid conditions who received pneumococcal vaccination, (b) significant barriers in outpatient vaccination processes, and (c) the spectrum of pneumococcal disease in Veterans. In general, themes from this review could be useful for stimulating quality improvement initiatives to increase pneumococcal vaccination in Veterans. However, little is known about barriers to Veterans receiving outpatient pneumococcal vaccination. Future research should be directed toward staff education of consensus guidelines. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 46(11), 13-16.].

Effect of Case-Mix and Random Variation on Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators and Their Rankability.

Hospital comparisons to improve quality of care require valid and reliable quality indicators. We aimed to test the validity and reliability of 6 breast cancer indicators by quantifying the influence of case-mix and random variation. The nationwide population-based database included 79 690 patients with breast cancer from 91 Dutch hospitals between 2011 and 2016. The indicator-scores calculated were: (1) irradical breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for invasive disease, (2) irradical BCS for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, (3) breast contour-preserving treatment, (4) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, (5) radiotherapy for locally advanced disease, and (6) surgery within 5 weeks from diagnosis. Case-mix and random variation adjustments were performed by multivariable fixed and random effect logistic regression models. Rankability quantified the between-hospital variation, representing unexplained differences that might be the result of the level of quality of care, as low (<50%), moderate (50%-75%), or high (>75%). All of the indicators showed between-hospital variation with wide (interquartile) ranges. Case-mix adjustment reduced variation in indicators 1 and 3 to 5. Random variation adjustment (further) reduced the variation for all indicators. Case-mix and random variation adjustments influenced the indicator-scores of individual hospitals and their ranking. Rankability was poor for indicator 1, 2, and 5, and moderate for 3, 4, and6. The 6 indicators lacked validity and/or reliability to a certain extent. Although measuring quality indicators may stimulate quality improvement in general, comparisons and judgments of individual hospital performance should be made with caution if based on indicators that have not been tested or adjusted for validity and reliability, especially in benchmarking.

How, in what contexts, and why do quality dashboards lead to improvements in care quality in acute hospitals? Protocol for a realist feasibility evaluation

IntroductionNational audits are used to monitor care quality and safety and are anticipated to reduce unexplained variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement (QI). However, variation within and between providers...

Which Factors Predict Hospital Length-of-Stay for Children Admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Pediatric Ward? A Hospital-Based Prospective Study.

Background. The ability to accurately predict hospital length of stay (LOS) or time to discharge could aid in resource planning, stimulate quality improvement activities, and provide evidence for future research and medical practice. This study aimed to determine the predictive factors of time to discharge among patients admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and pediatric ward in Goba referral hospital, Ethiopia. Methods. A facility-based prospective follow up study was conducted for 8 months among 438 patients. Survival analyses were carried out using the Kaplan Meier statistics and Cox regression model. Results. The median length of hospital stay was 7 days (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.45-7.54) and 6 days (95% CI: 5.21-6.78) for patients admitted to NICU and pediatric ward, respectively. In the multivariable Cox regression, the hazard of neonatal patients with less than 37 weeks of gestational age, low birth weight, and those who develop hospital-acquired infection (HAI) after admission had prolonged time to discharge by 54% [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 0.46, (95% CI: 0.31-0.66)], 40% [AHR: 0.60, (95% CI: 0.40-0.90)], and 56% [AHR: 0.44, (95% CI: 0.26-0.74)], respectively. The rate of time to discharge among patients who were admitted to the pediatric ward and had HAI delayed discharge time by 49% [AHR: 0.51, (95% CI: 0.30-0.85)] compared to their counterparts. Conclusion. Hospital-acquired infections prolonged hospital stay among neonates and children admitted to the pediatric ward. On a similar note, low gestational age and low birth weight were found to be the independent predictor of longer hospital stay among neonates.

A HOSPICE COLLABORATIVE NETWORK TO IMPROVE SERIOUS ILLNESS CARE IN A LARGE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

The quality of hospice care in the United States varies significantly, yet healthcare systems lack methods to comprehensively evaluate and stimulate quality improvement in organizations that serve their patients. Partners HealthCare, an integrated healthcare system located in Eastern Massachusetts, sought to create a high-quality hospice collaborative network based on objective and quantitative criteria obtained from public reporting as well as the hospice itself. Through a modified Delphi procedure, clinicians, administrators, and data scientists developed a set of criteria and a scoring system focused on three areas: organizational information, clinical care quality indicators, and training and satisfaction. All Medicare-certified hospices in good-standing in Massachusetts were eligible to participate in a request for information (RFI) process. We blinded all hospice data prior to scoring and invited hospices scoring above the 15th percentile to join the collaborative for a 2-year initial term. Of 72 eligible hospices, the majority (53%) responded to the RFI, of which 60% submitted completed surveys. Hospices could receive up to 23.75 points with scores ranging from 2.25 to 19.5. The median score was 13.62 (IQR: 10.5-16.75). For the 19 hospices scoring above the 15th percentile, scores ranged from 10.0-19.5 (median: 14, IQR: 11.1-16.9). There was no association between quality score and continuous (Spearman’s correlation 0.24, p=0.27) or dichotomous (Wilcoxon rank sum test p=0.13) measures of hospice size. The hospice collaborative network is one healthcare system’s initial attempt to effectively leverage its influence and relationships to improve hospice quality for the benefit of its seriously ill patients and their families.

165 Learning from Others: a Review of Dementia Registries and the Value of Dementia Data within the Irish Context

Abstract Background Since the 1980’s, the number of established dementia registries worldwide has grown considerably and new registries continue to develop (e.g. Cuba, Netherlands, Greece and Australia). Ireland does not currently collect data relating to dementia in any systematic way. A National Dementia Registry model has been commissioned by the National Dementia Office (funded by Dormant Accounts through the Department of Health) to address this gap. Methods Despite a growth in dementia registry numbers (30+), no international standard has emerged, nor does Ireland have national guidelines in relation to patient registries. We commenced with a review of research, volunteer, epidemiological, and quality of care registries to examine similarities and differences in their design, governance, data collection, outputs and perceived value, so that we can mirror and learn from these and determine the possibilities for value creation in an Irish context. Results Key models have emerged along with a willingness to share experiences and support our learning (e.g. France, Spain, Sweden, Norway and USA). Common data includes patient characteristics, diagnostic work-up, diagnosis, treatment (point in time) and service provider details. There is a clear shift towards quality models that identify variation in best practice, follow the patient over time (only Sweden to date), and provide feedback on performance in an effort to stimulate quality improvement and motivate change. No jurisdiction has perfect conditions. The creation of a registry can itself drive the change required to enable it to add value to the health system. Conclusion Existing dementia registries evidence the value that a dementia registry provides, in particular the fostering of clinical best practice and improvement in patient outcomes. Notwithstanding the challenges of integrated data collection in Ireland, these registry models illustrate that the time is right to develop a national dementia registry. The value and importance in having dementia data cannot be underestimated.

Variation in National Clinical Audit Data Capture: Is Using Routine Data the Answer?

National Clinical Audit (NCA) data are collected from all National Health Service providers in the UK, to measure the quality of care and stimulate quality improvement initatives. As part of a larger study we explored how NHS providers currently collect NCA data and the resources involved. Study results highlight a dependence on manual data entry and use of professional resources, which could be improved by exploring how routine clinical data could be captured more effectively.

Transparency in Healthcare 2017: Working with Consumers and Clinicians to Co-design a Transparent Future

Introduction : In New Zealand (NZ), complaints by journalists to the Ombudsman over release of named, surgeon-specific information have led to considerable activity in the healthcare sector. Increased transparency of health data for consumers and clinicians is the future but putting transparency to work has a history of controversy, waste and underuse by consumers. How do we make transparency work for everyone? Description of practice change : The NZ Health Quality & Safety Commission, a national quality improvement agency, are working with the NZ Ministry of Health on an innovative evidence-based approach to increasing transparency in consultation with consumers. Starting with existing registries, we are developing measures through a co-design process from existing robust data sources that provide consumers with information they want and clinicians with meaningful information they can act on and use for quality improvement projects. Aim and theory of change : Growing evidence internationally suggests the proactive publication of consumer-facing data at the unit, team or organisational level can successfully incentivise quality improvement even in the absence of market-derived mechanisms of consumer choice. Patients in the NZ public health system can’t choose their hospital, doctor, or surgeon and the evidence suggests consumers don’t use quality information to choose providers even when they can. What levers, then, do we have to increase transparency, reassure our patients and incentivise quality improvement and teamwork in our clinicians, while avoiding the pitfalls of risk aversion, inadequate statistical power and waste of precious resources gathering and publishing data no one uses? We suggest publication of bundles of co-designed measures can inform and reassure consumers and stimulate quality improvement activity in providers via the threat of reputational damage and possibility of gaining kudos. Targeted population and stakeholders, and highlights : Facilitated, expert-led consumer workshops with clinicians in attendance held in 2015 helped us learn what consumers want from increased transparency generally and how they understood the issues clinicians have with public reporting of their data. We found consumers understood issues of low sample sizes and data that was not risk-adjusted. Consumers wanted: • Reassurance, trust, confidence in the system • Information from a consumer perspective centred on the patient journey, such as wait times and cancellations • Data on two to three aspects of a procedure • Details of the process • Likelihood of di­fferent outcomes including quality of life • Risks and benefits for individuals • Stories with a mix of data and personal accounts • Patient experience surveys and the ability to access ‘expert patients’ with first-hand experience. Focused workshops held this year with consumers and clinicians of the all New Zealand acute coronary syndrome quality improvement registry (ANZACS-QI) – a well-established clinical registry with robust data – enabled us to co-design and develop a bundle of measures that collectively satisfy consumers as well as stimulate quality improvement by providers, particularly in previously described areas of practice variation or low performance. Conclusions : Success with this registry will enable us to ascertain transferability and sustainability of these techniques over other robust existing data sources.

How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis.

ObjectivesInternationally, there has been considerable debate about the role of data in supporting quality improvement in health care. Our objective was to understand how, why and in what circumstances the feedback of aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data improved patient care.MethodsWe conducted a realist synthesis. We identified three main programme theories underlying the use of patient-reported outcome measures as a quality improvement strategy and expressed them as nine ‘if then’ propositions. We identified international evidence to test these propositions through searches of electronic databases and citation tracking, and supplemented our synthesis with evidence from similar forms of performance data. We synthesized this evidence through comparing the mechanisms and impact of patient-reported outcome measures and other performance data on quality improvement in different contexts.ResultsThree programme theories were identified: supporting patient choice, improving accountability and enabling providers to compare their performance with others. Relevant contextual factors were extent of public disclosure, use of financial incentives, perceived credibility of the data and the practicality of the results. Available evidence suggests that patients or their agents rarely use any published performance data when selecting a provider. The perceived motivation behind public reporting is an important determinant of how providers respond. When clinicians perceived that performance indicators were not credible but were incentivized to collect them, gaming or manipulation of data occurred. Outcome data do not provide information on the cause of poor care: providers needed to integrate and interpret patient-reported outcome measures and other outcome data in the context of other data. Lack of timeliness of performance data constrains their impact.ConclusionsAlthough there is only limited research evidence to support some widely held theories of how aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate quality improvement, several lessons emerge from interventions sharing the same programme theories to help guide the increasing use of these measures.

Duration of Postoperative Mechanical Ventilation as a Quality Metric for Pediatric Cardiac Surgical Programs

Few metrics exist to assess quality of care at pediatric cardiac surgical programs, limiting opportunities for benchmarking and quality improvement. Postoperative duration of mechanical ventilation (POMV) may be an important quality metric because of its association with complications and resource utilization. In this study we modelled case-mix-adjusted POMV duration and explored hospital performance across POMV metrics. This study used the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium clinical registry to analyze 4,739 hospitalizations from 15 hospitals (October 2013 to August 2015). All patients admitted to pediatric cardiac intensive care units after an index cardiac operation were included. We fitted a model to predict duration of POMV accounting for patient characteristics. Robust estimates of SEs were obtained using bootstrap resampling. We created performance metrics based onobserved-to-expected (O/E) POMV to compare hospitals. Overall, 3,108 patients (65.6%) received POMV; the remainder were extubated intraoperatively. Our model was well calibrated across groups; neonatal age had the largest effect on predicted POMV. These comparisons suggested clinically and statistically important variation in POMV duration across centers with a threefold difference observed in O/E ratios (0.6 to 1.7). Weidentified 1 hospital with better-than-expected and3hospitals with worse-than-expected performance (p<0.05) based on the O/E ratio. We developed a novel case-mix-adjusted model to predict POMV duration after congenital heart operations. We report variation across hospitals on metrics of O/E duration of POMV that may be suitable for benchmarking quality of care. Identifying high-performing centers and practices that safely limit the duration of POMV could stimulate quality improvement efforts.