Performance on Electronic Clinical Quality Measures in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-126
Author(s):  
Christiane T. LaBonte ◽  
Perry Payne ◽  
William Rollow ◽  
Mark W. Smith ◽  
Abdul Nissar ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (8) ◽  
pp. e198569
Author(s):  
Kyle E. Knierim ◽  
Tristen L. Hall ◽  
L. Miriam Dickinson ◽  
Donald E. Nease ◽  
Dionisia R. de la Cerda ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
De-Chih Lee ◽  
Leiyu Shi ◽  
Hailun Liang

Objectives The United States Government’s Medicaid expansion policy has important implications for health centres, since a large proportion of health centre patients are Medicaid enrollees. The objective of this study was to compare primary care utilization and clinical quality performance between health centres in Medicaid expansion states and those in Medicaid non-expansion states. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study. Multiple regressions, using a standard linear model, were performed to examine the relationship between Medicaid expansion status and performance measures, accounting for covariates. Results Our results showed that in unadjusted analyses, health centres in Medicaid expansion states reported larger number of patients served, larger number of medical visits, a higher percentage of Medicaid patients, and better performance in seven of 16 clinical quality measures than those in Medicaid non-expansion states. After controlling for relevant health centre-level covariates, the differences in mean patients served, mean medical visits, percentage of Medicaid patients, and five clinical quality measures still existed. Conclusions These findings reveal significant associations between Medicaid expansion and primary care utilization and the quality of care. Medicaid expansion has demonstrated its potential role in promoting primary care for vulnerable populations served by health centres.


2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (11) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPHER NOTTE ◽  
NEIL SKOLNIK

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e000853
Author(s):  
Michael Topmiller ◽  
Jessica McCann ◽  
Jennifer Rankin ◽  
Hank Hoang ◽  
Joshua Bolton ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThis paper explores the impact of service area-level social deprivation on health centre clinical quality measures.DesignCross-sectional data analysis of Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health centres. We created a weighted service area social deprivation score for HRSA-funded health centres as a proxy measure for social determinants of health, and then explored adjusted and unadjusted clinical quality measures by weighted service area Social Deprivation Index quartiles for health centres.SettingsHRSA-funded health centres in the USA.ParticipantsOur analysis included a subset of 1161 HRSA-funded health centres serving more than 22 million mostly low-income patients across the country.ResultsHigher levels of social deprivation are associated with statistically significant poorer outcomes for all clinical quality outcome measures (both unadjusted and adjusted), including rates of blood pressure control, uncontrolled diabetes and low birth weight. The adjusted and unadjusted results are mixed for clinical quality process measures as higher levels of social deprivation are associated with better quality for some measures including cervical cancer screening and child immunisation status but worse quality for other such as colorectal cancer screening and early entry into prenatal care.ConclusionsThis research highlights the importance of incorporating community characteristics when evaluating clinical outcomes. We also present an innovative method for capturing health centre service area-level social deprivation and exploring its relationship to health centre clinical quality measures.


Author(s):  
Stephen D. Persell ◽  
Tiffany Brown ◽  
Jason N. Doctor ◽  
Craig R. Fox ◽  
Noah J. Goldstein ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
pp. 77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Kern ◽  
Sameer Malhotra ◽  
Yolanda Barrón ◽  
Jill Quaresimo ◽  
Rina Dhopeshwarkar ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 620-625
Author(s):  
Michael L. Parchman ◽  
Melissa L. Anderson ◽  
Robert B. Penfold ◽  
Elena Kuo ◽  
David A. Dorr

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 023-033
Author(s):  
Robert C. McClure ◽  
Caroline L. Macumber ◽  
Julia L. Skapik ◽  
Anne Marie Smith

Abstract Background Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) seek to quantify the adherence of health care to evidence-based standards. This requires a high level of consistency to reduce the effort of data collection and ensure comparisons are valid. Yet, there is considerable variability in local data capture, in the use of data standards and in implemented documentation processes, so organizations struggle to implement quality measures and extract data reliably for comparison across patients, providers, and systems. Objective In this paper, we discuss opportunities for harmonization within and across eCQMs; specifically, at the level of the measure concept, the logical clauses or phrases, the data elements, and the codes and value sets. Methods The authors, experts in measure development, quality assurance, standards and implementation, reviewed measure structure and content to describe the state of the art for measure analysis and harmonization. Our review resulted in the identification of four measure component levels for harmonization. We provide examples for harmonization of each of the four measure components based on experience with current quality measurement programs including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eCQM programs. Results In general, there are significant issues with lack of harmonization across measure concepts, logical phrases, and data elements. This magnifies implementation problems, confuses users, and requires more elaborate data mapping and maintenance. Conclusion Comparisons using semantically equivalent data are needed to accurately measure performance and reduce workflow interruptions with the aim of reducing evidence-based care gaps. It comes as no surprise that electronic health record designed for purposes other than quality improvement and used within a fragmented care delivery system would benefit greatly from common data representation, measure harmony, and consistency. We suggest that by enabling measure authors and implementers to deliver consistent electronic quality measure content in four key areas; the industry can improve quality measurement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document