The Volume and Cost of Quality Metric Reporting.

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known. Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type. Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

Implementing a Health System-wide Patient Blood Management Program with a Clinical Community Approach.

BACKGROUND: Patient blood management programs are gaining popularity as quality improvement and patient safety initiatives, but methods for implementing such programs across multihospital health systems are not well understood. Having recently incorporated a patient blood management program across our health system using a clinical community approach, we describe our methods and results. METHODS: We formed the Johns Hopkins Health System blood management clinical community to reduce transfusion overuse across five hospitals. This physician-led, multidisciplinary, collaborative, quality-improvement team (the clinical community) worked to implement best practices for patient blood management, which we describe in detail. Changes in blood utilization and blood acquisition costs were compared for the pre- and post-patient blood management time periods. RESULTS: Across the health system, multiunit erythrocyte transfusion orders decreased from 39.7 to 20.2% (by 49%; P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients transfused decreased for erythrocytes from 11.3 to 10.4%, for plasma from 2.9 to 2.2%, and for platelets from 3.1 to 2.7%, (P < 0.0001 for all three). The number of units transfused per 1,000 patients decreased for erythrocytes from 455 to 365 (by 19.8%; P < 0.0001), for plasma from 175 to 107 (by 38.9%; P = 0.0002), and for platelets from 167 to 141 (by 15.6%; P = 0.04). Blood acquisition cost savings were $2,120,273/yr, an approximate 400% return on investment for our patient blood management efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a health system-wide patient blood management program by using a clinical community approach substantially reduced blood utilization and blood acquisition costs.

Creating a Pediatric Joint Council to Promote Patient Safety and Quality, Governance, and Accountability Across Johns Hopkins Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Large multihospital health systems with multiple children's hospitals are relatively few in number. With a paucity of national pediatric measures for quality and patient safety, there are unique challenges to ensuring consistent levels of care across diverse health care delivery settings. At Johns Hopkins Medicine, a Pediatric Joint Council was created to help ensure high-quality and safe care across a health system encompassing two full-service children's hospitals and two community hospitals with significant pediatric volumes across two states. APPROACH: Across the health system, a governance, leadership, and management structure was developed to coordinate the quality and safety of patient care throughout the academic health system. Within the pediatric service line, the multidisciplinary Pediatric Joint Council included representation from each pediatric entity and was supported by project managers, quality improvement (QI) team leaders, QI leads from each entity, infection control, and clinical analysts. The Pediatric Joint Council was responsible for setting standards and improvement goals, as well as monitoring and improving performance of pediatric services across the health system and identifying training gaps and research opportunities. CONCLUSION: The Pediatric Joint Council model, as implemented, provides a focused structure for coordinated efforts across disparate pediatric entities, ensuring horizontal peer learning and entity-specific improvements, as well as vertical lines of accountability and central oversight with shared governance. This model has served to help identify areas in need of pediatric expertise and has facilitated the use of resources from across the entire health system focused on improving pediatric care.

From Board to Bedside: How the Application of Financial Structures to Safety and Quality Can Drive Accountability in a Large Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: As the health care system in the United States places greater emphasis on the public reporting of quality and safety data and its use to determine payment, provider organizations must implement structures that ensure discipline and rigor regarding these data. An academic health system, as part of a performance management system, applied four key components of a financial reporting structure to support the goal of top-to-bottom accountability for improving quality and safety. FOUR KEY COMPONENTS OF A FINANCIAL REPORTING STRUCTURE: The four components implemented by Johns Hopkins Medicine were governance, accountability, reporting of consolidated quality performance statements, and auditing. Governance is provided by the health system's Patient Safety and Quality Board Committee, which reviews goals and strategy for patient safety and quality, reviews quarterly performance for each entity, and holds organizational leaders accountable for performance. An accountability plan includes escalating levels of review corresponding to the number of months an entity misses the defined performance target for a measure. A consolidated quality statement helps inform the Patient Safety and Quality Board Committee and leadership on key quality and safety issues. An audit evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of processes for data collection, validation, and storage, as to ensure the accuracy and completeness of quality measure reporting. CONCLUSION: If hospitals and health systems truly want to prioritize improvements in safety and quality, they will need to create a performance management system that ensures data validity and supports performance accountability. Without valid data, it is difficult to know whether a performance gap is due to data quality or clinical quality.

Relative impact of a patient blood management program on utilization of all three major blood components.

BACKGROUND: Although patient blood management (PBM) programs clearly reduce transfusion overuse, the relative impact on red blood cell (RBC), plasma, and platelet (PLT) utilization is unclear. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of electronic records was conducted at a medium-sized academic hospital to assess blood utilization for all inpatients admitted during 1-year periods before (n = 20,531) and after (n = 19,477) PBM efforts began in September 2014. Transfusion guideline compliance and overall utilization were assessed for RBCs, plasma, and PLTs. The primary PBM efforts included education on evidence-based transfusion guidelines, decision support in the computerized provider order entry system, and distribution of provider-specific reports showing comparison to peers for guideline compliance. Cost avoidance was determined by two methods (acquisition cost and activity-based cost), and clinical outcomes were compared during the two periods. RESULTS: For RBCs, orders outside hospital guidelines decreased (from 23.9% to 17.1%, p < 0.001), and utilization decreased by 12% (p < 0.035). For plasma and PLTs, both orders outside guidelines and utilization changed minimally. Overall cost avoidance was $181,887/year by acquisition cost (and from $582,039 to $873,058/year by activity-based cost), 93% of which was attributed to reduction in RBC utilization. Length of stay, morbidity, and mortality were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a greater opportunity for reducing RBC compared to plasma and PLT utilization. A properly implemented PBM program has potential to reduce unnecessary transfusions and their associated risk and costs, without compromising clinical outcomes.

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.

Initiating an Enhanced Recovery Pathway Program: An Anesthesiology Department's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) for surgical patients may reduce variation in care and improve perioperative outcomes. Mainstays of ERPs are standardized perioperative pathways. At The Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore), an integrated ERP was proposed to further reduce the surgical site infection rate and the longer-than-expected hospital length of stay in colorectal surgery patients. METHODS: To develop the technical components of the anesthesia pathway, evidence on enhanced recovery was reviewed and the limitations of the hospital infrastructure and policies were considered. The goals of the perioperative anesthesiology pathway were achieving superior analgesia, minimizing postoperative nausea and vomiting, facilitating patient recovery, and preserving perioperative immune function. ERP was implemented in phases during a 30-day period, starting with the anesthesiology elements and followed by the pre- and postoperative surgical team processes. The perioperative anesthetic regimen was tailored to meet the goal of preservation of perioperative immune function (in an attempt to decrease surgical site infection and cancer recurrence), in part by minimizing perioperative opioid use. RESULTS: After six months of exposure to all ERP elements, a 45% reduction in length of stay was observed among colorectal surgery patients. In addition, patient satisfaction scores for this cohort of patients improved from the 37th percentile preimplementation to >97th percentile postimplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Development of an ERP requires collaboration among surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses. Thoughtful, collaborative pathway development and implementation, with recognition of the strengths and weakness of the existing surgical health care delivery system, should lead to realization of early improvement in outcomes.

Building a business case for colorectal surgery quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Improving surgical quality is a priority, but building a business case for the efforts could be challenging. Bridging the gap between the clinicians and hospital leaders is the first step to align quality and financial priorities within health care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the financial impact of the surgical comprehensive unit-based safety program on colorectal surgery procedures. DESIGN: This a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a university-based tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing colectomy or proctectomy between July 2010 and June 2012 were included. INTERVENTION: A comprehensive unit-based safety program focused on colorectal surgical site infection reduction was implemented. Three surgeons participated in the program in year 1, and 5 surgeons participated in year 2. Patients were categorized as participating or nonparticipating based on the surgeon who performed the procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resource utilization and cost were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: During the 2 years, there were 626 patients who met the selection criteria. Participating surgeons operated on 444 patients (70.9%), and the nonparticipating surgeons operated on 182 patients (29.1%). After adjusting for covariates, the variable direct cost was significantly lower for the participating surgeons in laboratory work by $191 (p = 0.009), operating room utilization by $149 (p = 0.05), and supplies by $615 (p = 0.003). The surgical site infection rates, need for an intensive care unit stay, and length of stay were not significantly different between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: The multiple biases related to surgeon self-selection for program participation and surgeon training and clinical skills were not addressed in this study owing to the limitations in sample size and data collection. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive unit-based safety program implementation, including dedicated frontline providers who focused on the standardization of protocols, was able to reduce the variation in resource utilization and costs in comparison with a control group.

Demonstrating high reliability on accountability measures at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Patients continue to suffer preventable harm from the omission of evidence-based therapies. To remedy this, The Joint Commission developed core measures for therapies with strong evidence and, through the Top Performer on Key Quality Measures program, recognize hospitals that deliver those therapies to 95% of patients. The Johns Hopkins Medicine board of trustees committed to high reliability and to providing > or = 96% of patients with the recommended therapies. METHODS: The Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality coordinated the core measures initiative, which targeted nine process measures for the 96% performance goal: eight Joint Commission accountability measures and one Delmarva Foundation core measure. A conceptual model for this initiative included communicating goals, building capacity with Lean Sigma methods, transparently reporting performance and establishing an accountability plan, and developing a sustainability plan. Clinicians and quality improvement staff formed one team for each targeted process measure, and Armstrong Institute staff supported the teams work. The primary performance measure was the percentage of patients who received the recommended process of care, as defined by the specifications for each of The Joint Commission's accountability measures. RESULTS: The > or = 96% performance goal was achieved for 82% of the measures in 2011 and 95% of the measures in 2012. CONCLUSIONS: With support from leadership and a conceptual model to communicate goals, use robust improvement methods, and ensure accountability, The Johns Hopkins Hospital achieved high reliability for The Joint Commission accountability measures.

Establishing a Culture of Patient Safety, Quality, and Service in Plastic Surgery: Integrating the Fractal Model.

PROBLEM: There are obstacles to effective nationwide implementation of a culture of patient safety. Plastic surgery faces unique challenges in this area because quality measures are not as well-established as in other fields. Plastic surgery may also require emphasis on patient-reported outcomes as a quality-of-life specialty with distinct concomitant analytical methods. APPROACH: We devised a dynamic framework, based on our 3-year experience using a Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program-a formal quality improvement committee structure, literature review, and work from The Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality. This framework is specific and exportable to the field of plastic surgery. Monthly patient safety, quality, and service committee meetings encourage multilevel participation in a bottom-up fashion, while connecting with other departments and entities in Johns Hopkins Medicine. Our model focuses our work in the following four domains: (1) safety, (2) external measures, (3) patient experience, and (4) value. Our framework identifies and communicates clear goals, creates necessary infrastructure, identifies opportunities and needs, uses robust performance to develop and implement interventions, and includes analytics to track improvement plans and results. OUTCOMES: We have gradually implemented this quality improvement structure into the Johns Hopkins Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery successfully since 2012. Outcomes have improved in externally reported measures of patient safety, quality, and service. We have demonstrated exemplary National Surgical Quality Improvement Program performance for morbidity, return to operating room, and readmission rates. Patient satisfaction surveys show improvement related to the high-level patient experience.

Paying the piper: investing in infrastructure for patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Although the best allocation of resources is unknown, there is general agreement that improvements in safety require an organization-level safety culture, in which leadership humbly acknowledges safety shortcomings and allocates resources at the patient care and unit levels to identify and mitigate risks. Since 2001, the Johns Hopkins Hospital has increased its investment in human capital at the patient care, unit/team, and organization levels to improve patient safety. PATIENT CARE LEVEL: An inadequate infrastructure, both technical and human, has prompted health care organizations to rely on nurses to help implement new safety programs and to enforce new policies because hospital leaders often have limited ability to disseminate or enforce such changes with the medical staff. UNIT OR TEAM LEVEL: At the team or nursing unit level, there is little or no infrastructure to develop, implement, and monitor safety projects. There is limited unit-level support for safety projects, and the resources that are allocated come from overtaxed department budgets. ORGANIZATION LEVEL: HOSPITAL LEVEL AND HEALTH SYSTEM: Infrastructure is needed to design, implement, and evaluate the following domains of work-measuring progress in patient safety, translating evidence into practice, identifying and mitigating hazards, improving culture and communication, and identifying an infrastructure in the organization for patient safety efforts. REFLECTIONS: Fulfilling a commitment to safe and high-quality care will not be possible without significant investment in patient safety infrastructure. Health care organizations will need to determine the cost-benefit ratio of various investments in patient safety. Yet, predicating safety efforts on the mistaken belief in a short-term return on investments will stall patient safety efforts.

Next level of board accountability in health care quality.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer six principles that health system leaders can apply to establish a governance and management system for the quality of care and patient safety. Design/methodology/approach Leaders of a large academic health system set a goal of high reliability and formed a quality board committee in 2011 to oversee quality and patient safety everywhere care was delivered. Leaders of the health system and every entity, including inpatient hospitals, home care companies, and ambulatory services staff the committee. The committee works with the management for each entity to set and achieve quality goals. Through this work, the six principles emerged to address management structures and processes. Findings The principles are: ensure there is oversight for quality everywhere care is delivered under the health system; create a framework to organize and report the work; identify care areas where quality is ambiguous or underdeveloped (i.e. islands of quality) and work to ensure there is reporting and accountability for quality measures; create a consolidated quality statement similar to a financial statement; ensure the integrity of the data used to measure and report quality and safety performance; and transparently report performance and create an explicit accountability model. Originality/value This governance and management system for quality and safety functions similar to a finance system, with quality performance documented and reported, data integrity monitored, and accountability for performance from board to bedside. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first description of how a board has taken this type of systematic approach to oversee the quality of care.

Advancing health care quality and safety through action learning.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to demonstrate how action learning can be practically applied to quality and safety challenges at a large academic medical health system and become fundamentally integrated with an institution's broader approach to quality and safety. Design/methodology/approach The authors describe how the fundamental principles of action learning have been applied to advancing quality and safety in health care at a large academic medical institution. The authors provide an academic contextualization of action learning in health care and then transition to how this concept can be practically applied to quality and safety by providing detailing examples at the unit, cross-functional and executive levels. Findings The authors describe three unique approaches to applying action learning in the comprehensive unit-based safety program, clinical communities and the quality management infrastructure. These examples, individually, provide discrete ways to integrate action learning in the advancement of quality and safety. However, more importantly when combined, they represent how action learning can form the basis of a learning health system around quality and safety. Originality/value This study represents the broadest description of action learning applied to the quality and safety literature in health care and provides detailed examples of its use in a real-world context.

Improving healthcare value through clinical community and supply chain collaboration.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that integrating supply chain with clinical communities would allow for clinician-led supply cost reduction and improved value in an academic health system. METHODS: Three clinical communities (spine, joint, blood management) and one clinical community-like physician led team of surgeon stakeholders partnered with the supply chain team on specific supply cost initiatives. The teams reviewed their specific utilization and cost data, and the physicians led consensus-building conversations over a series of team meetings to agree to standard supply utilization. RESULTS: The spine and joint clinical communities each agreed upon a vendor capping model that led to cost savings of $3 million dollars and $1.5 million dollars respectively. The blood management decreased blood product utilization and achieved $1.2 million dollars savings. $5.6 million dollars in savings was achieved by a clinical community-like group of surgeon stakeholders through standardization of sutures and endomechanicals. CONCLUSIONS: Physician led clinical teams empowered to lead change achieved substantial supply chain cost savings in an academic health system. The model of combining clinical communities with supply chain offers hope for an effective, practical, and scalable approach to improving value and engaging physicians in other academic health systems. IMPLICATIONS: This clinician led model could benefit both private and academic health systems engaging in value optimization efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

A Model for the Departmental Quality Management Infrastructure Within an Academic Health System.

As quality improvement and patient safety come to play a larger role in health care, academic medical centers and health systems are poised to take a leadership role in addressing these issues. Academic medical centers can leverage their large integrated footprint and have the ability to innovate in this field. However, a robust quality management infrastructure is needed to support these efforts. In this context, quality and safety are often described at the executive level and at the unit level. Yet, the role of individual departments, which are often the dominant functional unit within a hospital, in realizing health system quality and safety goals has not been addressed. Developing a departmental quality management infrastructure is challenging because departments are diverse in composition, size, resources, and needs.In this article, the authors describe the model of departmental quality management infrastructure that has been implemented at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. This model leverages the fractal approach, linking departments horizontally to support peer and organizational learning and connecting departments vertically to support accountability to the hospital, health system, and board of trustees. This model also provides both structure and flexibility to meet individual departmental needs, recognizing that independence and interdependence are needed for large academic medical centers. The authors describe the structure, function, and support system for this model as well as the practical and essential steps for its implementation. They also provide examples of its early success.

Establishing an Ambulatory Medicine Quality and Safety Oversight Structure: Leveraging the Fractal Model.

PROBLEM: Academic health systems face challenges in the governance and oversight of quality and safety efforts across their organizations. Ambulatory practices, which are growing in number, size, and complexity, face particular challenges in these areas. APPROACH: In February 2014, leaders at Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM) implemented a governance, oversight, and accountability structure for quality and safety efforts across JHM ambulatory practices. This model was based on the fractal approach, which balances independence and interdependence and provides horizontal and vertical support. It set expectations of accountability at all levels from the Board of Trustees to frontline staff and featured a cascading structure that reached all units and ambulatory practices. This model leveraged an Ambulatory Quality Council led by a physician and nurse dyad to provide the infrastructure to share best practices, continuously improve, and define accountable local leaders. OUTCOMES: This model was incorporated into the quality and safety infrastructure across JHM. Improved outcomes in the domains of patient safety/risk reduction, externally reported quality measures, patient care/experience, and value have been demonstrated. An additional benefit was an improvement in Medicaid value-based purchasing metrics, which are linked to several million dollars of revenue. NEXT STEPS: As this model matures, it will serve as a mechanism to align quality standards and programs across regional, national, and international partners and to provide a clear quality structure as new practices join the health system. Future efforts will link this model to JHM's academic mission, enhancing education to address Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies.

A Model for Integrating Ambulatory Surgery Centers Into an Academic Health System Using a Novel Ambulatory Surgery Coordinating Council.

PROBLEM: An increasing volume of ambulatory surgeries has led to an increase in the number of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Some academic health systems have aligned with ASCs to create a more integrated care delivery system. Yet, these centers are diverse in many areas, including specialty types, ownership models, management, physician employment, and regulatory oversight. Academic health systems then face challenges in integrating these ASCs into their organizations. APPROACH: Johns Hopkins Medicine created the Ambulatory Surgery Coordinating Council in 2014 to manage, standardize, and promote peer learning among its eight ASCs. The Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality provided support and a model for this organization through its quality management infrastructure. The physician-led council defined a mission and created goals to identify best practices, uniformly provide the highest-quality patient-centered care, and continuously improve patient outcomes and experience across ASCs. OUTCOMES: Council members built trust and agreed on a standardized patient safety and quality dashboard to report measures that include regulatory, care process, patient experience, and outcomes data. The council addressed unintentional outcomes and process variation across the system and agreed to standard approaches to optimize quality. Council members also developed a process for identifying future goals, standardizing care practices and electronic medical record documentation, and creating quality and safety policies. NEXT STEPS: The early success of the council supports the continuation of the Armstrong Institute model for physician-led quality management. Other academic health systems can learn from this model as they integrate ASCs into their complex organizations.