Why Quality and Outcomes Measures Are So Challenging

NEJM Catalyst ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Pollard
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Thomas A. D’Amico ◽  
Lindsey A.M. Bandini ◽  
Alan Balch ◽  
Al B. Benson ◽  
Stephen B. Edge ◽  
...  

Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.


1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 370-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia P. Katz ◽  
Jonathan A. Showstack

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Gregory J Dehmer ◽  

Public reporting of healthcare data is not a new concept. This initiative continues to proliferate as consumers and other stakeholders seek information on the quality and outcomes of care. Furthermore, mandates for the development of additional public reporting efforts are included in several new healthcare legislations such as the Affordable Care Act. Many current reporting programs rely heavily on administrative data as a surrogate for true clinical data, but this approach has well-defined limitations. Clinical data are traditionally more difficult and costly to collect, but more accurately reflect the clinical status of the patient, thus enhancing validity of the quality metrics and the reporting program. Several professional organizations have published policy statements articulating the main principles that should establish the foundation for public reporting programs in the future.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e001309
Author(s):  
Jennifer Gosling ◽  
Nicholas Mays ◽  
Bob Erens ◽  
David Reid ◽  
Josephine Exley

BackgroundThis paper presents the results of the first UK-wide survey of National Health Service (NHS) general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers (PMs) designed to explore the service improvement activities being undertaken in practices, and the factors that facilitated or obstructed that work. The research was prompted by growing policy and professional interest in the quality of general practice and its improvement. The analysis compares GP and PM involvement in, and experience of, quality improvement activities.MethodsThis was a mixed-method study comprising 26 semistructured interviews, a focus group and two surveys. The qualitative data supported the design of the surveys, which were sent to all 46 238 GPs on the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) database and the PM at every practice across the UK (n=9153) in July 2017.ResultsResponses from 2377 GPs and 1424 PMs were received and were broadly representative of each group. Ninety-nine per cent reported having planned or undertaken improvement activities in the previous 12 months. The most frequent related to prescribing and access. Key facilitators of improvement included ‘good clinical leadership’. The two main barriers were ‘too many demands from external stakeholders’ and a lack of protected time. Audit and significant event audit were the most common improvement tools used, but respondents were interested in training on other quality improvement tools.ConclusionGPs and PMs are interested in improving service quality. As such, the new quality improvement domain in the Quality and Outcomes Framework used in the payment of practices is likely to be relatively easily accepted by GPs in England. However, if improving quality is to become routine work for practices, it will be important for the NHS in the four UK countries to work with practices to mitigate some of the barriers that they face, in particular the lack of protected time.


Author(s):  
Sarah Bernard ◽  
Rui Vilarinho ◽  
Inês Pinto ◽  
Rosa Cantante ◽  
Ricardo Coxo ◽  
...  

Home-based models represent one of the solutions to respond to the poor accessibility of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) services in patients with chronic respiratory disease (CRD). The main goal of this protocol is to present the implementation of the first nationwide home-based PR program—reabilitAR—in Portugal and the strategies to assess its benefits in patients with CRD. The program consists of 2 phases: a 12-week intensive phase and a 40-week maintenance phase (total: 52 weeks, 1 year). The intervention in both phases is composed of presential home visits and phone-call follow ups, including exercise training and the self-management educational program Living Well with COPD. Dyspnea, impact of the disease, emotional status, and level of dyspnea during activities of daily living are used as patient-reported outcomes measures. A one-minute sit-to-stand test is used as a functional outcome, and the number of steps as a measure of physical activity. To ensure safety, fall risk and the cognitive function are assessed. Data are collected at baseline, at 12 weeks, at 26 weeks and at 52 weeks. This is the first nationwide protocol on enhancing access to PR, providing appropriate responses to CRD patients’ needs through a structured and personalized home-based program in Portugal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document