Enhancing global access to cancer medicines.

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.

The Impact of Health Care Algorithms on Racial and Ethnic Disparities : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing concern for the potential impact of health care algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities. PURPOSE: To examine the evidence on how health care algorithms and associated mitigation strategies affect racial and ethnic disparities. DATA SOURCES: Several databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Using predefined criteria and dual review, studies were screened and selected to determine: 1) the effect of algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care outcomes and 2) the effect of strategies or approaches to mitigate racial and ethnic bias in the development, validation, dissemination, and implementation of algorithms. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes of interest (that is, access to health care, quality of care, and health outcomes) were extracted with risk-of-bias assessment using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool and adapted CARE-CPM (Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models) equity extension. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-three studies (51 modeling, 4 retrospective, 2 prospective, 5 prepost studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) were included. Heterogenous evidence on algorithms was found to: a) reduce disparities (for example, the revised kidney allocation system), b) perpetuate or exacerbate disparities (for example, severity-of-illness scores applied to critical care resource allocation), and/or c) have no statistically significant effect on select outcomes (for example, the HEART Pathway [history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin]). To mitigate disparities, 7 strategies were identified: removing an input variable, replacing a variable, adding race, adding a non-race-based variable, changing the racial and ethnic composition of the population used in model development, creating separate thresholds for subpopulations, and modifying algorithmic analytic techniques. LIMITATION: Results are mostly based on modeling studies and may be highly context-specific. CONCLUSION: Algorithms can mitigate, perpetuate, and exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities, regardless of the explicit use of race and ethnicity, but evidence is heterogeneous. Intentionality and implementation of the algorithm can impact the effect on disparities, and there may be tradeoffs in outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

Respectful Maternity Care : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Severe maternal morbidity and mortality are worse in the United States than in all similar countries, with the greatest effect on Black women. Emerging research suggests that disrespectful care during childbirth contributes to this problem. PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review on definitions and valid measurements of respectful maternity care (RMC), its effectiveness for improving maternal and infant health outcomes for those who are pregnant and postpartum, and strategies for implementation. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, and SocINDEX for English-language studies (inception to July 2023). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions of RMC versus usual care for effectiveness studies; additional qualitative and noncomparative validation studies for definitions and measurement studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual data abstraction and quality assessment using established methods, with resolution of disagreements through consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-seven studies were included across all questions, of which 1 provided insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of RMC to improve maternal outcomes and none studied RMC to improve infant outcomes. To define RMC, authors identified 12 RMC frameworks, from which 2 main concepts were identified: disrespect and abuse and rights-based frameworks. Disrespect and abuse components focused on recognizing birth mistreatment; rights-based frameworks incorporated aspects of reproductive justice, human rights, and antiracism. Five overlapping framework themes include freedom from abuse, consent, privacy, dignity, communication, safety, and justice. Twelve tools to measure RMC were validated in 24 studies on content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency, but lack of a gold standard limited evaluation of criterion validity. Three tools specific for RMC had at least 1 study demonstrating consistency internally and with an intended construct relevant to U.S. settings, but no single tool stands out as the best measure of RMC. LIMITATIONS: No studies evaluated other health outcomes or RMC implementation strategies. The lack of definition and gold standard limit evaluation of RMC tools. CONCLUSION: Frameworks for RMC are well described but vary in their definitions. Tools to measure RMC demonstrate consistency but lack a gold standard, requiring further evaluation before implementation in U.S. settings. Evidence is lacking on the effectiveness of implementing RMC to improve any maternal or infant health outcome. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42023394769).

Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Health system assessment for access to care after injury in low- or middle-income countries: A mixed methods study from Northern Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Injuries represent a vast and relatively neglected burden of disease affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While many health systems underperform in treating injured patients, most assessments have not considered the whole system. We integrated findings from 9 methods using a 3 delays approach (delays in seeking, reaching, or receiving care) to prioritise important trauma care health system barriers in Karonga, Northern Malawi, and exemplify a holistic health system assessment approach applicable in comparable settings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To provide multiple perspectives on each conceptual delay and include data from community-based and facility-based sources, we used 9 methods to examine the injury care health system. The methods were (1) household survey; (2) verbal autopsy analysis; (3) community focus group discussions (FGDs); (4) community photovoice; (5) facility care-pathway process mapping and elucidation of barriers following injury; (6) facility healthcare worker survey; (7) facility assessment survey; (8) clinical vignettes for care process quality assessment of facility-based healthcare workers; and (9) geographic information system (GIS) analysis. Empirical data collection took place in Karonga, Northern Malawi, between July 2019 and February 2020. We used a convergent parallel study design concurrently conducting all data collection before subsequently integrating results for interpretation. For each delay, a matrix was created to juxtapose method-specific data relevant to each barrier identified as driving delays to injury care. Using a consensus approach, we graded the evidence from each method as to whether an identified barrier was important within the health system. We identified 26 barriers to access timely quality injury care evidenced by at least 3 of the 9 study methods. There were 10 barriers at delay 1, 6 at delay 2, and 10 at delay 3. We found that the barriers "cost," "transport," and "physical resources" had the most methods providing strong evidence they were important health system barriers within delays 1 (seeking care), 2 (reaching care), and 3 (receiving care), respectively. Facility process mapping provided evidence for the greatest number of barriers-25 of 26 within the integrated analysis. There were some barriers with notable divergent findings between the community- and facility-based methods, as well as among different community- and facility-based methods, which are discussed. The main limitation of our study is that the framework for grading evidence strength for important health system barriers across the 9 studies was done by author-derived consensus; other researchers might have created a different framework. CONCLUSIONS: By integrating 9 different methods, including qualitative, quantitative, community-, patient-, and healthcare worker-derived data sources, we gained a rich insight into the functioning of this health system's ability to provide injury care. This approach allowed more holistic appraisal of this health system's issues by establishing convergence of evidence across the diverse methods used that the barriers of cost, transport, and physical resources were the most important health system barriers driving delays to seeking, reaching, and receiving injury care, respectively. This offers direction and confidence, over and above that derived from single methodology studies, for prioritising barriers to address through health service development and policy.

Defining a Framework and Evaluation Metrics for Sustainable Global Surgical Partnerships: A Modified Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use expert consensus to build a concrete and realistic framework and checklist to evaluate sustainability in global surgery partnerships (GSPs). BACKGROUND: Partnerships between high-resourced and low-resourced settings are often created to address the burden of unmet surgical need. Reflecting on the negative, unintended consequences of asymmetrical partnerships, global surgery community members have proposed frameworks and best practices to promote sustainable engagement between partners, though these frameworks lack consensus. This project proposes a cohesive, consensus-driven framework with accompanying evaluation metrics to guide sustainability in GSPs. METHODS: A modified Delphi technique with purposive sampling was used to build consensus on the definitions and associated evaluation metrics of previously proposed pillars (Stakeholder Engagement, Multidisciplinary Collaboration, Context-Relevant Education and Training, Bilateral Authorship, Multisource Funding, Outcome Measurement) of sustainable GSPs. RESULTS: Fifty global surgery experts from 34 countries with a median of 9.5 years of experience in the field of global surgery participated in 3 Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved on the identity, definitions, and a 47-item checklist for the evaluation of the 6 pillars of sustainability in GSPs. In all, 29% of items achieved consensus in the first round, whereas 100% achieved consensus in the second and third rounds. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first framework for building sustainable GSPs using the input of experts from all World Health Organization regions. We hope this tool will help the global surgery community to find noncolonial solutions to addressing the gap in access to quality surgical care in low-resource settings.

Reformulating provider profiling by grouping providers treating similar patients prior to evaluating performance.

Standard approaches to comparing health providers' performance rely on hierarchical logistic regression models that adjust for patient characteristics at admission. Estimates from these models may be misleading when providers treat different patient populations and the models are misspecified. To address this limitation, we propose a novel profiling approach that identifies groups of providers treating similar populations of patients and then evaluates providers' performance within each group. The groups of providers are identified using a Bayesian multilevel finite mixture of general location models. To compare the performance of our proposed profiling approach to standard methods, we use patient-level data from 119 skilled nursing facilities in Massachusetts. We use simulated and observed outcome data to explore the performance of these profiling methods in different settings. In simulations, our proposed method classifies providers to groups with similar patients' admission characteristics. In addition, in the presence of limited overlap in patient characteristics across providers and misspecifications of the outcome model, the provider-level estimates obtained using our approach identified providers that under- and overperformed compared to the standard regression-based approaches more accurately.

The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study).

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS: Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators. RESULTS: Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

Immigration Status and Breast Cancer Surgery Quality of Care Metrics: A Population-Level Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: As immigrant women face challenges accessing health care, we hypothesized that immigration status would be associated with fewer women with breast cancer receiving surgery for curable disease, fewer undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS), and longer wait time to surgery. METHODS: A population-level retrospective cohort study, including women aged 18-70 years with Stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario was conducted. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess odds of undergoing surgery, receiving BCS and wait time to surgery. RESULTS: A total of 31,755 patients were included [26,253 (82.7%) Canadian-born and 5502 (17.3%) immigrant women]. Immigrant women were younger (mean age 51.6 vs. 56.1 years) and less often presented with Stage I/II disease (87.4% vs. 89.8%) (both p < .001). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference between immigrant women and Canadian-born women in odds of undergoing surgery [Stage I OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.79-1.11), Stage II 1.04 (0.89-1.22), Stage III 1.22 (0.94-1.57)], receiving BCS [Stage I 0.93 (0.82-1.05), Stage II 0.96 (0.86-1.07), Stage III 1.00 (0.83-1.22)], or wait time [Stage I 0.45 (-0.61-1.50), Stage II 0.33 (-0.86-1.52), Stage III 3.03 (-0.05-6.12)]. In exploratory analysis, new immigrants did not have surgery more than established immigrants (12.9% vs. 10.1%), and refugee women had longer wait time compared with economic-class immigrants (39.5 vs. 35.3 days). CONCLUSIONS: We observed differences in measures of socioeconomic disadvantage and disease characteristics between immigrant and Canadian-born women with breast cancer. Upon adjusting for these factors, no differences emerged in rate of surgery, rate of BCS, and time to surgery. The lack of disparity suggests barriers to accessing basic components of breast cancer care may be mitigated by the universal healthcare system in Canada.

Home Health Agencies With High Quality of Patient Care Star Ratings Reduced Short-Term Hospitalization Rates and Increased Days Independently at Home.

BACKGROUND: Critics argue that Medicare's Quality of Patient Care home health star ratings are inaccurate. Valid ratings are essential to help patients find high-quality care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether using the highest-rated home health agency available in a ZIP code improves outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective study of 1,870,080 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries using home health care from July 2015 through July 2016 in the United States. An instrumental variables approach is used to address the endogeneity of agency choice, where the instrument is the differential proximity of the patient to the closest highest-rated and closest lower-rated agency. OUTCOMES: Days independently at home; health care setting-specific days and death; hospitalization, emergency department use, and institutionalization risk. RESULTS: Treatment by the highest-rated agencies available decreased risks (in percentage points) of hospitalization (-3.2; 95% CI, -4.1 to -2.3), emergency department use (-2.2; 95% CI, -3.2 to -1.1), and institutionalization (-0.9; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.5) during the initial episode, and increased days independently at home by 2.6% or 3.75 (95% CI, 2.20-5.29) days in the 180 days after the end of the initial episode. Treatment effects were more pronounced for agencies that were above-average (6.51 d; 95% CI, 4.15-8.87), had ≥1 more star than the next-best agency (7.80 d; 95% CI, 4.13-11.47), and nonrural residents (4.57 d; 95% CI, 2.75-6.40). Effects were positive for both postacute (3.40; 95% CI, 1.80-5.00) and community-entry (5.60; 95% CI, 2.30-8.89) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare's Quality of Patient Care star rating correlates with reduced short-term hospitalizations and emergency department use and increased days independently at home in the longer term.

Patient satisfaction and value based purchasing in hospitals, Odisha, India.

Objective: To examine how a general inpatient satisfaction survey functions as a hospital performance measure. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods pilot study of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems survey in Odisha, India. We divided the study into three steps: cognitive testing of the survey, item testing with exploratory factor analysis and content validity indexing. Cognitive testing involved 50 participants discussing their interpretation of survey items. The survey was then administered to 507 inpatients across five public hospitals in Odisha, followed by exploratory factor analysis. Finally, we interviewed 15 individuals to evaluate the content validity of the survey items. Findings: Cognitive testing revealed that six out of 18 survey questions were not consistently understood within the Odisha inpatient setting, highlighting issues around responsibilities for care. Exploratory factor analysis identified a six-factor structure explaining 66.7% of the variance. Regression models showed that interpersonal care from doctors and nurses had the strongest association with overall satisfaction. An assessment of differential item functioning revealed that patients with a socially marginalized caste reported higher disrespectful care, though this did not translate into differences in reported satisfaction. Content validity indexing suggested that discordance between experiences of disrespectful care and satisfaction ratings might be due to low patient expectations. Conclusion: Using satisfaction ratings without nuanced approaches in value-based purchasing programmes may mask poor-quality interpersonal services, particularly for historically marginalized patients. Surveys should be designed to accurately capture true levels of dissatisfaction, ensuring that patient concerns are not hidden.

Health system performance assessment and reforms, Oman.

Problem: To prioritize key areas of action and investment for the next strategic cycle of national development plans (2026-2031) in Oman, we needed a holistic view of the country's health system and its main deficiencies and inefficiencies. Approach: Informed by the World Health Organization framework, our team of seven national health ministry staff and two international experts conducted a rapid health system performance assessment. We used already available data to identify system bottlenecks and their potential root causes, verifying our findings with key informant interviews. Local setting: Oman's 4.9 million population is relatively young (average age 28 years) but ageing, with a mounting burden of chronic diseases. While health-care services are free for Omani nationals, more than 1.5 million expatriates rely on out-of-pocket payments for health-care services. Strengthening primary health care, improving the quality of care, providing financial protection, and ensuring that public and private health-care providers operate within the same legal and procedural framework are recognized as key national priorities. Relevant changes: Our assessment highlighted the need to extend health service coverage to the whole population, strengthen private health-care sector governance, improve health education, increase financial investment, and expand the country's capacity for data collection and analysis. Lessons learnt: The assessment framework allowed us to identify areas where information is lacking and use already available data to analyse multiple health outcomes. As well as identifying issues that need to be addressed during the next policy development cycle, our findings have contributed towards the preparation of a more extensive assessment.

Population assessment of health system performance in 16 countries.

Objective: To demonstrate how the new internationally comparable instrument, the People's Voice Survey, can be used to contribute the perspective of the population in assessing health system performance in countries of all levels of income. Methods: We surveyed representative samples of populations in 16 low-, middle- and high-income countries on health-care utilization, experience and confidence during 2022-2023. We summarized and visualized data corresponding to the key domains of the World Health Organization universal health coverage framework for health system performance assessment. We examined correlation with per capita health spending by calculating Pearson coefficients, and within-country income-based inequities using the slope index of inequality. Findings: In the domain of care effectiveness, we found major gaps in health screenings and endorsement of public primary care. Only one in three respondents reported very good user experience during health visits, with lower proportions in low-income countries. Access to health care was rated highest of all domains; however, only half of the populations felt secure that they could access and afford high-quality care if they became ill. Populations rated the quality of private health systems higher than that of public health systems in most countries. Only half of respondents felt involved in decision-making (less in high-income countries). Within countries, we found statistically significant pro-rich inequalities across many indicators. Conclusion: Populations can provide vital information about the real-world function of health systems, complementing other system performance metrics. Population-wide surveys such as the People's Voice Survey should become part of regular health system performance assessments.

Bereaved Respondent Perceptions of Quality of Care by Inpatient Palliative Care Utilization in the Last Month of Life.

BACKGROUND: Under traditional Medicare, accountability measures are specific to each healthcare setting. With the growth of alternative payment models such as Medicare Advantage, the focus of accountability measures can be on the longitudinal episode of care. OBJECTIVE: Using the last month of life as the episode of care, examine bereaved family member perceptions of the quality of care by site of death and inpatient palliative/hospice care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the National Health Aging Trends Study waves 3-11. SUBJECTS: US decedents age 65 and older with family member or close friend survey response. MAIN MEASURES: Overall rating of the quality of care, perceptions of symptom management, being treated with respect, emotional/spiritual support, communication, and receipt of care that the decedent did not want. KEY RESULTS: Among 2796 interviews (weighted N = 12.6 million), 25.7% died at home with hospice, 10.9% at home without hospice, 10.0% in the ICU, 6.4% at a palliative care unit (PCU), 6.4% at a hospice IPU, 9.1% at hospital without inpatient palliative care, 13.2% at a nursing home without hospice, 9.8% in a nursing home with hospice, 4.1% at a hospice residence, and 4.4% at other locations without hospice. Dying at home with hospice received the highest rating of quality of care (60.2% stated excellent care) while the adjusted marginal differences in sites of death with inpatient palliative care services were rated lower: hospice residence 25.6% points lower (95% CI (-13.7%, -37.5%)) and a freestanding IPU was 16.9% points lower (95% CI (- 4.9%, -29.0%)). CONCLUSION: Examining the episode of care as the last month of life, hospice at home is associated with higher rating of the quality of care while inpatient palliative care services in hospital, hospice residence, or hospice IPU settings are rated lower.

Evaluating the Quality of Virtual Urgent Care: Barriers, Motivations, and Implementation of Quality Measures.

BACKGROUND: Experts estimate virtual urgent care programs could replace approximately 20% of current emergency department visits. In the absence of widespread quality guidance to programs or quality reporting from these programs, little is known about the state of virtual urgent care quality monitoring initiatives. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize ongoing quality monitoring initiatives among virtual urgent care programs. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews of virtual health and health system leaders were conducted using a pilot-tested interview guide to assess quality metrics captured related to care effectiveness and equity as well as programs' motivations for and barriers to quality measurement. We classified quality metrics according to the National Quality Forum Telehealth Measurement Framework. We developed a codebook from interview transcripts for qualitative analysis to classify motivations for and barriers to quality measurement. KEY RESULTS: We contacted 13 individuals, and ultimately interviewed eight (response rate, 61.5%), representing eight unique virtual urgent care programs at primarily academic (6/8) and urban institutions (5/8). Most programs used quality metrics related to clinical and operational effectiveness (7/8). Only one program reported measuring a metric related to equity. Limited resources were most commonly cited by participants (6/8) as a barrier to quality monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: We identified variation in quality measurement use and content by virtual urgent care programs. With the rapid growth in this approach to care delivery, more work is needed to identify optimal quality metrics. A standardized approach to quality measurement will be key to identifying variation in care and help focus quality improvement by virtual urgent care programs.

Equity and Quality of Global Chronic Kidney Disease Care: What Are We Waiting for?

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important but insufficiently recognized public health problem. Unprecedented advances in delaying progression of CKD and reducing kidney failure and death have been made in recent years, with the addition of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and other newer medication to the established standard of care with inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system. Despite knowledge of these effective therapies, their prescription and use remain suboptimal globally, and more specially in low resource settings. Many challenges contribute to this gap between knowledge and translation into clinical care, which is even wider in lower resource settings across the globe. Implementation of guideline-directed care is hampered by lack of disease awareness, late or missed diagnosis, clinical inertia, poor quality care, cost of therapy, systemic biases, and lack of patient empowerment. All of these are exacerbated by the social determinants of health and global inequities. SUMMARY: CKD is a highly manageable condition but requires equitable and sustainable access to quality care supported by health policies, health financing, patient and health care worker education, and affordability of medications and diagnostics. KEY MESSAGES: The gap between the knowledge and tools to treat CKD and the implementation of optimal quality kidney care should no longer be tolerated. Advocacy, research and action are required to improve equitable access to sustainable quality care for CKD everywhere.

Availability and Quality of Dialysis Care in Rural versus Urban US Counties.

INTRODUCTION: Rural areas face significant disparities in dialysis care compared to urban areas due to limited access to dialysis facilities, longer travel distances, and a shortage of healthcare professionals. The objective of this study was to conduct a national examination of rural-urban differences in quality of dialysis care offered across counties in the USA. METHODS: Data were gathered from Medicare-certified dialysis facilities in 2020 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. To identify high-need counties, county-level estimated crude prevalence of diabetes in adults was obtained from the 2022 CDC PLACES data portal. Our analysis reviewed 3,141 counties in the USA. The primary outcome measured was whether the county had a dialysis facility. Among those counties that had a dialysis facility, additional outcomes were the average star rating, whether peritoneal dialysis was offered, and whether home dialysis was offered. RESULTS: The type of services offered by dialysis facilities varied significantly, with peritoneal dialysis being the most commonly offered service (50.8%), followed by home hemodialysis (28.5%) and late-shift services (16.0%). These service availabilities are more prevalent in urban facilities than in rural facilities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Five Star Quality ratings were quite different between urban and rural facilities, with 40.4% of rural facilities having a ranking of five, compared to 27.1% in urban. CONCLUSION: The majority of rural counties lack a single dialysis facility. Counties with high rates of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and blood pressure, deemed high need, were less likely to have a highly rated dialysis facility. The findings can be used to further inform targeted efforts to increase diabetes educational programming and design appropriate interventions to those residing in rural communities and high-need counties who may need it the most.

Four System Enablers of Large-System Transformation in Health Care: A Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation.

Policy Points The implementation of large-scale health care interventions relies on a shared vision, commitment to change, coordination across sites, and a spanning of siloed knowledge. Enablers of the system should include building an authorizing environment; providing relevant, meaningful, transparent, and timely data; designating and distributing leadership and decision making; and fostering the emergence of a learning culture. Attention to these four enablers can set up a positive feedback loop to foster positive change that can protect against the loss of key staff, the presence of lone disruptors, and the enervating effects of uncertainty. CONTEXT: Large-scale transformative initiatives have the potential to improve the quality, efficiency, and safety of health care. However, change is expensive, complex, and difficult to implement and sustain. This paper advances system enablers, which will help to guide large-scale transformation in health care systems. METHODS: A realist study of the implementation of a value-based health care program between 2017 and 2021 was undertaken in every public hospital (n = 221) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Four data sources were used to elucidate initial program theories beginning with a set of literature reviews, a program document review, and informal discussions with key stakeholders. Semistructured interviews were then conducted with 56 stakeholders to confirm, refute, or refine the theories. A retroductive analysis produced a series of context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) statements. Next, the CMOs were validated with three health care quality expert panels (n = 51). Synthesized data were interrogated to distill the overarching system enablers. FINDINGS: Forty-two CMO statements from the eight initial program theory areas were developed, refined, and validated. Four system enablers were identified: (1) build an authorizing environment; (2) provide relevant, authentic, timely, and meaningful data; (3) designate and distribute leadership and decision making; and (4) support the emergence of a learning culture. The system enablers provide a nuanced understanding of large-system transformation that illustrates when, for whom, and in what circumstances large-system transformation worked well or worked poorly. CONCLUSIONS: System enablers offer nuanced guidance for the implementation of large-scale health care interventions. The four enablers may be portable to similar contexts and provide the empirical basis for an implementation model of large-system value-based health care initiatives. With concerted application, these findings can pave the way not just for a better understanding of greater or lesser success in intervening in health care settings but ultimately to contribute higher quality, higher value, and safer care.

Developing and exploring the validity of a patient reported experience measure for adult inpatient diabetes care.

AIM: To develop and explore the validity of a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for adult inpatient diabetes care. METHOD: 27 in-depth interviews were conducted to inform the development of the 42-item PREM which was cognitively tested with 10 people. A refined 38-item PREM was piloted with 228 respondents completing a paper (n = 198) or online (n = 30) version. The performance of the PREM was evaluated by exploring (i) uptake/number of responses and (ii) survey validity by investigating whether the PREM data were of adequate quality and delivered useful information. RESULTS: The PREM had low drop-out or missing data rates suggesting it was appropriately constructed. Analysis of item frequencies and variances, and problem score calculations concluded that questions provided sufficient score differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: This new PREM allows for experiences of inpatient diabetes care to be measured, understood and reported on to help identify priority areas for improving care quality.