Reducing Overuse by Healthcare Systems: A Positive Deviance Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare in the USA is increasingly delivered by large healthcare systems that include one or more hospitals and associated outpatient practices. It is unclear what role healthcare systems play in driving or preventing overutilization of healthcare services in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To learn how high-value healthcare systems avoid overuse of services DESIGN: We identified "positive deviant" health systems using a previously constructed Overuse Index. These systems have much lower-than-average overuse of healthcare services. We confirmed that these health systems also delivered high-quality care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with executive leaders of these systems to validate a published framework for understanding drivers of overuse. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders at select healthcare systems in the USA. INTERVENTIONS: None APPROACH: We developed an interview guide and conducted semi-structured interviews. We iteratively developed a code book. Paired reviewers coded and reconciled each interview. We analyzed the interviews by applying constant comparative techniques. We mapped the emergent themes to provide the first empirical data to support a previously developed theoretical framework. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 15 leaders from 10 diverse healthcare systems. Consistent with important domains from the overuse framework, themes from our study support the role of clinicians and patients in avoiding overuse. The leaders described how they create a culture of professional practice and how they modify clinicians' attitudes to facilitate high-value practices. They also described how their patients view healthcare consumption and the characteristics of their patient populations allowed them to practice high-value medicine. They described the role of quality metrics, insurance plan ownership, and alternative payment model participation as encouraging avoidance of overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative analysis of positive deviant health systems supports the framework that is in the published literature, although health system leaders also described their financial structures as another important factor for reducing overuse and encouraging high-value care delivery.

Sustaining Reliability on Accountability Measures at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

BACKGROUND: In 2012 Johns Hopkins Medicine leaders challenged their health system to reliably deliver best practice care linked to nationally vetted core measures and achieve The Joint Commission Top Performer on Key Quality Measures ®program recognition and the Delmarva Foundation award. Thus, the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality implemented an initiative to ensure that ≥96% of patients received care linked to measures. Nine low-performing process measures were targeted for improvement-eight Joint Commission accountability measures and one Delmarva Foundation core measure. In the initial evaluation at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, all accountability measures for the Top Performer program reached the required ≥95% performance, gaining them recognition by The Joint Commission in 2013. Efforts were made to sustain performance of accountability measures at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. METHODS: Improvements were sustained through 2014 using the following conceptual framework: declare and communicate goals, create an enabling infrastructure, engage clinicians and connect them in peer learning communities, report transparently, and create accountability systems. One part of the accountability system was for teams to create a sustainability plan, which they presented to senior leaders. To support sustained improvements, Armstrong Institute leaders added a project management office for all externally reported quality measures and concurrent reviewers to audit performance on care processes for certain measure sets. CONCLUSIONS: The Johns Hopkins Hospital sustained performance on all accountability measures, and now more than 96% of patients receive recommended care consistent with nationally vetted quality measures. The initiative methods enabled the transition of quality improvement from an isolated project to a way of leading an organization.

Surgeon Volume and Laryngectomy Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between surgeon volume and operative morbidity and mortality for laryngectomy. DATA SOURCES: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 45,156 patients who underwent laryngectomy procedures for laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer between 2001 and 2011. Hospital and surgeon laryngectomy volume were modeled as categorical variables. METHODS: Relationships between hospital and surgeon volume and mortality, surgical complications, and acute medical complications were examined using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Higher-volume surgeons were more likely to operate at large, teaching, nonprofit hospitals and were more likely to treat patients who were white, had private insurance, hypopharyngeal cancer, low comorbidity, admitted electively, and to perform partial laryngectomy, concurrent neck dissection, and flap reconstruction. Surgeons treating more than 5 cases per year were associated with lower odds of medical and surgical complications, with a greater reduction in the odds of complications with increasing surgical volume. Surgeons in the top volume quintile (>9 cases/year) were associated with a decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.09 [0.01-0.74]), postoperative surgical complications (OR = 0.58 [0.45-0.74]), and acute medical complications (OR = 0.49 [0.37-0.64]). Surgeon volume accounted for 95% of the effect of hospital volume on mortality and 16%-47% of the effect of hospital volume on postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: There is a strong volume-outcome relationship for laryngectomy, with reduced mortality and morbidity associated with higher surgeon and higher hospital volumes. Observed associations between hospital volume and operative morbidity and mortality are mediated by surgeon volume, suggesting that surgeon volume is an important component of the favorable outcomes of high-volume hospital care. Laryngoscope, 133:834-840, 2023.

Development of the Leapfrog Group's Bar Code Medication Administration Standard to Address Hospital Inpatient Medication Safety.

ABSTRACT: Medication errors are the most common type of error in hospitals and reflect a leading cause of avoidable harm to patients. Bar code medication administration (BCMA) systems are a technology designed to help intercept medication errors at the point of medication administration. This article describes the process of developing, testing, and refining a standard for BCMA adoption and use in U.S. hospitals, as measured through the Leapfrog Hospital Survey. Building on the published literature and an expert panel's collective experience in studying, implementing, and using BCMA systems, the expert panel recommended a standard with 4 key domains. Leapfrog's BCMA standard provides hospitals with a "how-to guide" on what best practice looks like for using BCMA to ensure safe medication administration at the bedside.