Launching the Quality Outcomes Database Tumor Registry: rationale, development, and pilot data

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Anthony L. Asher ◽  
Adham M. Khalafallah ◽  
Debraj Mukherjee ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
Yagiz U. Yolcu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intracranial Tumor ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Pilot Phase ◽  
Quality Outcomes ◽  
Tumor Registry ◽  
Patient Reported

OBJECTIVE Neurosurgeons generate an enormous amount of data daily. Within these data lie rigorous, valid, and reproducible evidence. Such evidence can facilitate healthcare reform and improve quality of care. To measure the quality of care provided objectively, evaluating the safety and efficacy of clinical activities should occur in real time. Registries must be constructed and collected data analyzed with the precision akin to that of randomized clinical trials to accomplish this goal. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Tumor Registry was launched in February 2019 with 8 sites in its initial 1-year pilot phase. The Tumor Registry was proposed by the AANS/CNS Tumor Section and approved by the QOD Scientific Committee in the fall of 2018. The initial pilot phase aimed to assess the feasibility of collecting outcomes data from 8 academic practices across the United States; these outcomes included length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient complications. RESULTS As of November 2019, 923 eligible patients have been entered, with the following subsets: intracranial metastasis (17.3%, n = 160), high-grade glioma (18.5%, n = 171), low-grade glioma (6%, n = 55), meningioma (20%, n = 184), pituitary tumor (14.3%, n = 132), and other intracranial tumor (24%, n = 221). CONCLUSIONS The authors have demonstrated here, as a pilot study, the feasibility of documenting demographic, clinical, operative, and patient-reported outcome characteristics longitudinally for 6 common intracranial tumor types.

scholarly journals Associations between Hospital Quality Outcomes and Medicare Spending per Beneficiary in the USA

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 831
Author(s):  
Karyn Cook ◽  
Brent Foster ◽  
I’sis Perry ◽  
Christy Hoke ◽  
Dana Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hospital Quality ◽  
Probit Regression ◽  
Quality Outcomes ◽  
Patient Health ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Medicare Spending

The cost of healthcare in the United States has increased over time. However, patient health outcomes have not trended with spending. There is a need to better comprehend the association between healthcare costs in the United States and hospital quality outcomes. Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB), a homogeneous metric across providers, can be used to evaluate the association between episodic Medicare spending and quality of care. Fifteen inpatient outcome measures were selected from Hospital Compare data among all (n = 4758) facilities and transformed to quintiles to ensure comparability across measures and to reduce the influence of outliers on the analysis. Both univariate and multiresponse multinomial ordered probit regression models were utilized across outcome domains to quantify associations between outcomes and spending. We found that MSPB was not associated with quality of care in most cases, adding evidence of a lack of outcome accountability among Medicare-funded facilities. Furthermore, worse outcomes were found to be associated with increased spending for some metrics. Policies are needed to align quality of care outcomes with the increasing costs of U.S. healthcare.

scholarly journals Understanding the Link between Family Caregiver Quality of Life and the Care Provided to Older People With Dementia

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 153-154
Author(s):  
Afeez Hazzan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Older People ◽  
Family Caregivers ◽  
Family Caregiver ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Dementia is one of the most rapidly growing diseases in the United States. In 2018, the direct costs to American society of caring for older people with dementia was approximately $277 billion. Primary informal caregivers are mainly responsible for the care of older people with dementia including Alzheimer’s disease. Caregivers perform a myriad of duties ranging from shopping for their loved ones’ groceries, helping with medications, and managing finances. The caregiving role becomes more demanding as the disease progresses over time, and studies have shown that the quality-of-life (QoL) experienced by caregivers of older adults who have dementia is lower than the QoL of caregivers for older people who do not have dementia. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no research conducted to investigate whether lower caregiver QoL affects the level or quality of care that caregivers provide to persons with dementia. In the current study, we interviewed family caregivers living in Rochester, New York to inquire about their quality of life and the care provided to older people living with dementia. Further, caregivers completed the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) as well as a draft questionnaire for measuring the quality of care provided to older people living with dementia. Both quantitative and qualitative findings from this study reveals important relationships between family caregiver QoL and the care provided, including the impact of social support and financial well-being. The study findings could have significant impact, particularly for the provision of much needed support for family caregivers.

scholarly journals Understanding contributors to quality of care in long-term care and changes under COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 960-960
Author(s):  
Sara Luck ◽  
Katie Aubrecht
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Qualitative Description ◽  
Care Staff ◽  
Term Care ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Nursing home facilities are responsible for providing care for some of the most vulnerable groups in society, including the elderly and those with chronic medical conditions. In times of crisis, such as COVID-19 or other pandemics, the delivery of ‘regular’ care can be significantly impacted. In relation to COVID-19, there is an insufficient supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) to care for residents, as PPE not only protects care staff but also residents. Nursing homes across the United States and Canada have also taken protective measures to maximize the safety of residents by banning visitors, stopping all group activities, and increasing infection control measures. This presentation shares a research protocol and early findings from a study investigating the impact of COVID-19 on quality of care in residential long-term care (LTC) in the Canadian province of New Brunswick. This study used a qualitative description design to explore what contributes to quality of care for residents living in long-term care, and how this could change in times of crisis from the perspective of long-term care staff. Interviews were conducted with a broad range of staff at one LTC home. A semi-structured interview guide and approach to thematic analysis was framed by a social ecological perspective, making it possible to include the individual and proximal social influences as well as community, organizations, and policy influencers. Insights gained will improve the understanding of quality of care, as well as potential barriers and facilitators to care during times of crisis.

scholarly journals Physician beliefs about the impact of meaningful use of the EHR

2014 ◽  
Vol 05 (03) ◽  
pp. 789-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.Y. Ting ◽  
M. Healey ◽  
S.R. Lipsitz ◽  
A.S. Karson ◽  
J. S. Einbinder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Meaningful Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Incentive Program ◽  
Physician Beliefs ◽  
The Impact

SummaryBackground: As adoption and use of electronic health records (EHRs) grows in the United States, there is a growing need in the field of applied clinical informatics to evaluate physician perceptions and beliefs about the impact of EHRs. The meaningful use of EHR incentive program provides a suitable context to examine physician beliefs about the impact of EHRs.Objective: Contribute to the sparse literature on physician beliefs about the impact of EHRs in areas such as quality of care, effectiveness of care, and delivery of care.Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of physicians at two academic medical centers (AMCs) in the northeast who were preparing to qualify for the meaningful use of EHR incentive program.Results: Of the 1,797 physicians at both AMCs who were preparing to qualify for the incentive program, 967 completed the survey for an overall response rate of 54%. Only 23% and 27% of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that meaningful use of the EHR will help them improve the care they personally deliver and improve quality of care respectively. Physician specialty was significantly associated with beliefs; e.g., 35% of primary care physicians agreed or strongly agreed that meaningful use will improve quality of care compared to 26% of medical specialists and 21% of surgical specialists (p=0.009). Satisfaction with outpatient EHR was also significantly related to all belief items.Conclusions: Only about a quarter of physicians in our study responded positively that meaningful use of the EHR will improve quality of care and the care they personally provide. These findings are similar to and extend findings from qualitative studies about negative perceptions that physicians hold about the impact of EHRs. Factors outside of the regulatory context, such as physician beliefs, need to be considered in the implementation of the meaningful use of the EHR incentive program.Citation: Emani S, Ting DY, Healey M, Lipsitz SR, Karson AS, Einbinder JS, Leinen L, Suric V, Bates DW. Physician beliefs about the impact of meaningful use of the EHR: A cross-sectional study. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 789–801http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-05-RA-0050

Patient Satisfaction and Short-Term Outcome in Elective Cranial Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 769-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elina Reponen ◽  
Hanna Tuominen ◽  
Juha Hernesniemi ◽  
Miikka Korja
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Major Morbidity ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Relationship Of

Abstract BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience is often used as a measure for quality of care, but no reports on patient satisfaction after cranial neurosurgery exist. OBJECTIVE: To study the association of overall patient satisfaction and surgical outcome and to evaluate the applicability of overall patient satisfaction as a proxy for quality of care in elective cranial neurosurgery. METHODS: We conducted an observational study on the relationship of overall patient satisfaction at 30 postoperative days with surgical and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score) in a prospective, consecutive, and unselected cohort of 418 adult elective craniotomy patients enrolled between December 2011 and December 2012 at Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. RESULTS: Postoperative overall (subjective and objective) morbidity was present in 194 (46.4%) patients; yet almost 94% of all study patients reported high overall satisfaction. Low overall patient satisfaction at 30 days was not associated with postoperative major morbidity in elective cranial neurosurgery. Dependent functional status (mRS score ≥3) at 30 days, minor infections, poor postoperative subjective overall health status, and patient-reported severe symptoms (double vision, poor balance) may contribute to unsatisfactory patient experience. CONCLUSION: Overall patient satisfaction with elective cranial neurosurgery is high. Even 9 of 10 patients with postoperative major morbidity rated high overall patient satisfaction at 30 days. Overall patient satisfaction may merely reflect patient experience and subjective postoperative health status, and therefore it is a poor proxy for quality of care in elective cranial neurosurgery.

P1743Assessment of quality of care of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Poland

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Hudzik ◽  
A Budaj ◽  
M Gierlotka ◽  
A Witkowski ◽  
W Wojakowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Introduction 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients have called for the assessment of the quality of care to establish measurable quality indicators in order to ensure that every patient with STEMI receives the best possible care. We investigated the quality indicators of health care services in Poland provided to STEMI patients. Methods The Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes (PL-ACS) is an ongoing, nationwide, multicenter, prospective, observational study of consecutively hospitalized patients with the whole spectrum of ACS in Poland. For the purpose of assessing quality indicators, we included 8,279 patients from the PL-ACS Registry hospitalized with STEMI between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Results All emergency medical services (EMS) are equipped with ECG/defibrillators. 408 of 8,279 patients (4.9%) arrived at PCI center by self-transport, 4,791 patients (57.9%) patients arrived at PCI center by direct EMS transport, and 2,900 patients (37.2%) were transferred from non-PCI facilities. Whilst 95.1% of STEMI patients arriving in the first 12 hours received reperfusion therapy, the rates of timely reperfusion were much lower (ranging from 39.4% to 55.0% for various STEMI pathways). 7,807 patients (94.3%) underwent PCI as a mode of primary reperfusion strategy. The median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 46% and was assessed before discharge in 86.0% of patients. 489 of 8,279 patients (5.9%) died during hospital stay. Optimal medical therapy is prescribed in 50–85% of patients depending on various clinical settings. Only one in two STEMI patient is enrolled in a cardiac rehabilitation program at discharge. No patient-reported outcomes were recorded in the PL-ACS Registry. Figure 1 Conclusions The results of this study identified areas of healthcare systems that require solid improvement. These include prehospital ECG decision strategy, direct transport to PCI center, timely reperfusion, guidelines-based medical therapy (in particular in patients with heart failure), referral to cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs. More importantly, we recognized an urgent need for the initiation of recording quality indicators associated with patient-reported outcomes.

scholarly journals Quality of care received and patient-reported regret in prostate cancer: Analysis of a population-based prospective cohort

Cancer ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan A. Holmes ◽  
Jeannette T. Bensen ◽  
James L. Mohler ◽  
Lixin Song ◽  
Merle H. Mishel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Patient Reported

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Care Performance

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This review contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 56 references Keywords: Quality of care, performance measure, quality improvement, clinical practice, sigma six, transparency

Quality of Care: Performance Measurement and Quality Improvement in Clinical Practice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonali P. Desai ◽  
Allen Kachalia
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Technological Advancement

Attention to the quality of care within the United States health care system has grown tremendously over the past decade. We have witnessed a significant change in how quality improvement and clinical performance measurement are approached. The current focus on quality and safety stems in part from the increasingly clear realization that more services and technological advancement are not automatically equivalent to high-quality care. Much of the discussion about cost and quality in health care is shifting towards the concept of value. Value is defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent (in other words, an assessment of the quality of care per cost). This chapter reviews the current state of quality improvement in health care and, because improvement cannot be determined without measurement, reviews several aspects of effective clinical performance measurement. Since many measures are already in place, the chapter describes some of the organizations involved in quality measurement and improvement, as well the approaches they utilize. It looks at the multiple strategies in place to improve quality, from process management to collaboration, from financial incentives to transparency, and reviews newer models of care delivery that may materialize in the near future. Tables list types of quality measures, characteristics to consider when developing a quality measure, and organizations involved in quality improvement and performance measurement. A figure shows strategies used by the federal government to spur performance measurement and quality improvement. This chapter contains 56 references.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document