scholarly journals Defining an International Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Patients With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: Consensus of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Working Group

2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (11) ◽  
pp. 1631-1639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ola Rolfson ◽  
Stephanie Wissig ◽  
Lisa van Maasakkers ◽  
Caleb Stowell ◽  
Ilana Ackerman ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1132-1140 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H Seligman ◽  
Zofia Das-Gupta ◽  
Adedayo O Jobi-Odeneye ◽  
Elena Arbelo ◽  
Amitava Banerjee ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims As health systems around the world increasingly look to measure and improve the value of care that they provide to patients, being able to measure the outcomes that matter most to patients is vital. To support the shift towards value-based health care in atrial fibrillation (AF), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international Working Group (WG) of 30 volunteers, including health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of outcomes for benchmarking care delivery in clinical settings. Methods and results Using an online-modified Delphi process, outcomes important to patients and health professionals were selected and categorized into (i) long-term consequences of disease outcomes, (ii) complications of treatment outcomes, and (iii) patient-reported outcomes. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, comorbidities, cognitive function, date of diagnosis, disease duration, medications prescribed and AF procedures, as well as smoking, body mass index (BMI), alcohol intake, and physical activity. Where appropriate, and for ease of implementation, standardization of outcomes and case-mix variables was achieved using ICD codes. The standard set underwent an open review process in which over 80% of patients surveyed agreed with the outcomes captured by the standard set. Conclusion Implementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of chronic AF care. Their consistent definition and collection, using ICD codes where applicable, could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research in AF.


Author(s):  
Kevin Hummel ◽  
Sarah Whittaker ◽  
Nick Sillett ◽  
Amy Basken ◽  
Malin Berghammer ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital malformation. Despite the worldwide burden to patient wellbeing and health system resource utilization, tracking of long-term outcomes is lacking, limiting the delivery and measurement of high-value care. To begin transitioning to value-based healthcare in CHD, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement aligned an international collaborative of CHD experts, patient representatives, and other stakeholders to construct a standard set of outcomes and risk-adjustment variables that are meaningful to patients. Methods and results The primary aim was to identify a minimum standard set of outcomes to be used by health systems worldwide. The methodological process included four key steps: 1) develop a working group representative of all CHD stakeholders; 2) conduct extensive literature reviews to identify scope, outcomes of interest, tools used to measure outcomes, and case-mix adjustment variables; 3) create the outcome set using a series of multi-round Delphi processes; and 4) disseminate set worldwide. The WG established a 15-item outcome set, incorporating physical, mental, social, and overall health outcomes accompanied by tools for measurement and case-mix adjustment variables. Patients with any CHD diagnoses of all ages are included. Following an open review process, over 80% of patients and providers surveyed agreed with the set in its final form. Conclusion This is the first international development of a stakeholder-informed standard set of outcomes for CHD. It can serve as a first step for a lifespan outcomes measurement approach to guide benchmarking and improvement among health systems.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e051065
Author(s):  
William H Seligman ◽  
Luz Fialho ◽  
Nick Sillett ◽  
Christina Nielsen ◽  
Farhala M Baloch ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread morbidity and mortality with the consequences expected to be felt for many years. Significant variation exists in the care even of similar patients with COVID-19, including treatment practices within and between institutions. Outcome measures vary among clinical trials on the same therapies. Understanding which therapies are of most value is not possible unless consensus can be reached on which outcomes are most important to measure. Furthermore, consensus on the most important outcomes may enable patients to monitor and track their care, and may help providers to improve the care they offer through quality improvement. To develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes for clinical care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a working group (WG) of 28 volunteers, including health professionals, patients and patient representatives.DesignA list of outcomes important to patients and professionals was generated from a systematic review of the published literature using the MEDLINE database, from review of outcomes being measured in ongoing clinical trials, from a survey distributed to patients and patient networks, and from previously published ICHOM standard sets in other disease areas. Using an online-modified Delphi process, the WG selected outcomes of greatest importance.ResultsThe outcomes considered by the WG to be most important were selected and categorised into five domains: (1) functional status and quality of life, (2) mental functioning, (3) social functioning, (4) clinical outcomes and (5) symptoms. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, clinical factors and treatment-related factors.ConclusionImplementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of care to patients with COVID-19. Their consistent definition and collection could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research.


2016 ◽  
Vol 146 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Upton ◽  
Jessica Zerillo ◽  
Maartje Schouwenburg ◽  
Annelotte van Bommel ◽  
Caleb Stowell ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J.P. Burns ◽  
Jason Arora ◽  
Oluwakemi Okunade ◽  
John F. Beltrame ◽  
Sabrina Bernardez-Pereira ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document