Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. METHODS: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. RESULTS: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Quality measures in pre-liver transplant care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

Full adherence to cirrhosis quality indicators is associated with lower mortality in acute variceal bleeding: Nationwide audit.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is a major complication in patients with cirrhosis. Using a nationwide AVB audit, we performed a nested cohort study to determine whether full adherence to the AVB quality indicator (QI) improves clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and AVB. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We assessed real-world adherence to AVB QI among patients with cirrhosis admitted for AVB in all public hospitals in Singapore between January 2015 and December 2020. Full adherence was considered when all 5 QIs were fulfilled: prophylactic antibiotics, vasoactive agents, timely endoscopy, endoscopic hemostasis during index endoscopy, and nonselective beta-blockers after AVB. We compare 6-week mortality between the full adherence and suboptimal adherence groups using a propensity-matched cohort.A total of 989 patients with AVB were included. Full adherence to all AVB QI was suboptimal (56.5%). Analysis of the propensity-matched cohort with comparable baseline characteristics showed that full adherence was associated with a lower risk of early infection (20.0% vs. 26.9%), early rebleeding (5.2% vs. 10.2%), and mortality at 6 weeks (8.2% vs. 19.7%) and 1 year (21.3% vs. 35.4%) ( p <0.05 for all). While full adherence was associated with a lower 6-week mortality regardless of the MELD score, nonadherence was associated with a higher 6-week mortality despite a lower predicted risk of 6-week mortality. Despite high adherence to the recommended process measures, patients with CTP-C remain at a higher risk of rebleeding, 6-week and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Full adherence to the AVB QI should be the target for quality improvement in patients with cirrhosis.

Quality Indicators for Major Depressive Disorder in Adults: A Review of Performance Measures by the American College of Physicians.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a severe mood disorder that affects at least 8.4% of the adult population in the United States. Characteristics of MDD include persistent sadness, diminished interest in daily activities, and a state of hopelessness. The illness may progress quickly and have devastating consequences if left untreated. Eight performance measures are available to evaluate screening, diagnosis, and successful management of MDD. However, many performance measures do not meet the criteria for validity, reliability, evidence, and meaningfulness.The American College of Physicians (ACP) embraces performance measurement as a means to externally validate the quality of care of practices, medical groups, and health plans and to drive reimbursement processes. However, a plethora of performance measures that provide low or no value to patient care have inundated physicians, practices, and systems and burdened them with collecting and reporting of data. The ACP's Performance Measurement Committee (PMC) reviews performance measures using a validated process to inform regulatory and accreditation bodies in an effort to recognize high-quality performance measures, address gaps and areas for improvement in performance measures, and help reduce reporting burden. Out of 8 performance measures, the PMC found only 1 measure (suicide risk assessment) that was valid at all levels of attribution. This paper presents a review of MDD performance measures and highlights opportunities to improve performance measures addressing MDD management.

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.

Defining the quality of interdisciplinary care for patients with brain metastases: modified Delphi panel recommendations.

The value of interdisciplinary teams in improving outcomes and quality of care of patients with brain metastases remains uncertain, partly due to the lack of consensus on key indicators to evaluate interprofessional care. We aimed to obtain expert consensus across disciplines on indicators that evaluate the quality and value of brain metastases care. A steering committee of key opinion leaders curated relevant outcomes and process indicators from a literature review and a stakeholder needs assessment, and an international panel of physicians rated the outcomes and process indicators using a modified Delphi method. After three rounds, a consensus was reached on 29 indicators encompassing brain-directed oncological treatment, surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, supportive or palliative care, and interdisciplinary team care. The Brain Metastases Quality-of-Care measure reflects the value and quality of brain metastases team-based care according to treatment modality and provides a benchmark of care for this under-studied patient population. The adoption, implementation, and sustainability of this set of indicators could help address the need expressed by patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians for more coordinated care across inpatient, outpatient, home, community, and tertiary academic settings.

Defining pre-emptive living kidney donor transplantation as a quality indicator.

Quality indicators in kidney transplants are needed to identify care gaps and improve access to transplants. We used linked administrative health care databases to examine multiple ways of defining pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants, including different patient cohorts and censoring definitions. We included adults from Ontario, Canada with advanced chronic kidney disease between January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We created 4 unique incident patient cohorts, varying the eligibility by the risk of progression to kidney failure and whether individuals had a recorded contraindication to kidney transplant (eg, home oxygen use). We explored the effect of 4 censoring event definitions. Across the 4 cohorts, size varied substantially from 20 663 to 9598 patients, with the largest reduction (a 43% reduction) occurring when we excluded patients with ≥1 recorded contraindication to kidney transplantation. The incidence rate (per 100 person-years) of pre-emptive living donor kidney transplant varied across cohorts from 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.14) for our most inclusive cohort to 2.21 (95% CI: 1.96-2.49) for the most restrictive cohort. Our methods can serve as a framework for developing other quality indicators in kidney transplantation and monitoring and improving access to pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants in health care systems.

Renovating the Commission on Cancer's Quality Measure Portfolio.

IMPORTANCE: Nearly 75% of newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States will receive care from a hospital that is accredited by the Commission on Cancer (CoC). To support hospitals in their quality assurance efforts, the CoC maintains a portfolio of quality measures to give hospitals compliance data with select best practices for cancer care. As the CoC quality measures have evolved over recent years, many clinicians may lack awareness of the intent and content of the measure portfolio, as well as the mechanism by which new measures originate. OBSERVATIONS: The CoC quality measures are based on data that hospitals submit to the National Cancer Database, allowing the CoC to track compliance with a subset of consensus best practices. Each year, new measures are designed by diverse teams of specialists in the different treatment modalities for the tumor types covered by the portfolio. These proposed measures are then subjected to a range of vetting, refinement, and prioritization steps before being voted into the portfolio by the Quality Assurance and Data Committee of the CoC. Over the past 4 years, the CoC has worked to renovate not only the portfolio but also the process used to create and launch new measures, revise existing measures, and retire obsolete measures. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In the following overview, we outline the current measure process, highlight important changes to the portfolio, and share opportunities to further increase the impact.

European quality indicators developed by the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer: a first nationwide assessment for the Dutch setting.

PURPOSE: This observational study aims to assess the feasibility of calculating indicators developed by the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) for the Dutch breast cancer population. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with invasive or in situ breast cancer between 2012 and 2018 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Outcomes of the quality indicators (QI) were presented as mean scores and were compared to a stated norm. Variation between hospitals was assessed by standard deviations and funnel plots and trends over time were evaluated. The quality indicator calculator (QIC) was validated by comparing these outcomes with the outcomes of constructed algorithms in Stata. RESULTS: In total, 133,527 patients were included. Data for 24 out of 26 QIs were available in the NCR. For 67% and 67% of the QIs, a mean score above the norm and low or medium hospital variation was observed, respectively. The proportion of patients undergoing a breast reconstruction or neoadjuvant systemic therapy increased over time. The proportion treated within 4 weeks from diagnosis, having >10 lymph nodes removed or estrogen negative breast cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy decreased. The outcomes of the constructed algorithms in this study and the QIC showed 100% similarity. CONCLUSION: Data from the NCR could be used for the calculation of more than 92% of the ECIBC indicators. The quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands is high, as more than half of the QIs already score above the norm and medium hospital variation was observed. The QIC can be easy and reliably applied.

Diagnosis-linked antibiotic prescribing quality indicators: demonstrating feasibility using practice-based routine primary care data, reliability, validity and their potential in antimicrobial stewardship.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) can be used to obtain valuable insights into prescribing quality. Five quantitative and nine diagnosis-linked QIs, aiming to provide general practitioners (GP) with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing quantity and quality, were previously developed and evaluated in a controlled study. OBJECTIVE: To confirm, in a larger non-controlled study, the feasibility of using routinely collected and extracted electronic patient records to calculate the diagnosis-linked QI outcomes for antibiotic prescribing, and their reliability and validity. METHODS: Retrospective study involving 299 Dutch general practices using routine care data (2018-2020). QIs describe total antibiotic and subgroup prescribing, prescribing percentages and first-choice prescribing for several clinical diagnoses. Practice variation in QI outcomes, inter-QI outcome correlations and sensitivity of QI outcomes to pandemic-induced change were determined. RESULTS: QI outcomes were successfully obtained for 278/299 practices. With respect to reliability, outcomes for 2018 and 2019 were comparable, between-practice variation in outcomes was similar to the controlled pilot, and inter-QI outcome correlations were as expected, for example: high prescribing of second choice antibiotics with low first-choice prescribing for clinical diagnoses. Validity was confirmed by their sensitivity to pandemic-induced change: total antibiotic prescribing decreased from 282 prescriptions/1000 registered patients in 2018 to 216 in 2020, with a decrease in prescribing percentages for upper and lower respiratory infections, from 26% to 18.5%, and from 28% to 16%. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the fit-for-purpose (feasibility, reliability and validity) of the antibiotic prescribing QIs (including clinical diagnosis-linked ones) using routinely registered primary health care data as a source. This feedback can therefore be used in antibiotic stewardship programmes to improve GPs' prescribing routines.

Earned outcomes correlate with reliability-adjusted surgical mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and predict future performance.

OBJECTIVE: Cumulative, probability-based metrics are regularly used to measure quality in professional sports, but these methods have not been applied to health care delivery. These techniques have the potential to be particularly useful in describing surgical quality, where case volume is variable and outcomes tend to be dominated by statistical "noise." The established statistical technique used to adjust for differences in case volume is reliability-adjustment, which emphasizes statistical "signal" but has several limitations. We sought to validate a novel measure of surgical quality based on earned outcomes methods (deaths above average [DAA]) against reliability-adjusted mortality rates, using abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes to illustrate the measure's performance. METHODS: Earned outcomes methods were used to calculate the outcome of interest for each patient: DAA. Hospital-level DAA was calculated for non-ruptured open AAA repair and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2016 to 2019. DAA for each center is the sum of observed - predicted risk of death for each patient; predicted risk of death was calculated using established multivariable logistic regression modeling. Correlations of DAA with reliability-adjusted mortality rates and procedure volume were determined. Because an accurate quality metric should correlate with future results, outcomes from 2016 to 2017 were used to categorize hospital quality based on: (1) risk-adjusted mortality; (2) risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality; and (3) DAA. The best performing quality metric was determined by comparing the ability of these categories to predict 2018 to 2019 risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 3734 patients underwent open repair (106 hospitals), and 20,680 patients underwent EVAR (183 hospitals). DAA was closely correlated with reliability-adjusted mortality rates for open repair (r = 0.94; P < .001) and EVAR (r = 0.99; P < .001). DAA also correlated with hospital case volume for open repair (r = -.54; P < .001), but not EVAR (r = 0.07; P = .3). In 2016 to 2017, most hospitals had 0% mortality (55% open repair, 57% EVAR), making it impossible to evaluate these hospitals using traditional risk-adjusted mortality rates alone. Further, zero mortality hospitals in 2016 to 2017 did not demonstrate improved outcomes in 2018 to 2019 for open repair (3.8% vs 4.6%; P = .5) or EVAR (0.8% vs 1.0%; P = .2) compared with all other hospitals. In contrast to traditional risk-adjustment, 2016 to 2017 DAA evenly divided centers into quality quartiles that predicted 2018 to 2019 performance with increased mortality rate associated with each decrement in quality quartile (Q1, 3.2%; Q2, 4.0%; Q3, 5.1%; Q4, 6.0%). There was a significantly higher risk of mortality at worst quartile open repair hospitals compared with best quartile hospitals (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.76; P = .03). Using 2016 to 2019 DAA to define quality, highest quality quartile open repair hospitals had lower median DAA compared with lowest quality quartile hospitals (-1.18 DAA vs +1.32 DAA; P < .001), correlating with lower median reliability-adjusted mortality rates (3.6% vs 5.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for differences in hospital volume is essential when measuring hospital-level outcomes. Earned outcomes accurately categorize hospital quality and correlate with reliability-adjustment but are easier to calculate and interpret. From 2016 to 2019, highest quality open AAA repair hospitals prevented >40 perioperative deaths compared with the average hospital, and >80 perioperative deaths compared with lowest quality hospitals.

A patient-centered textbook outcome measure effectively discriminates contemporary elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair quality.

BACKGROUND: There is persistent controversy surrounding the merit of surgical volume benchmarks being used solely as a sufficient proxy for assessing the quality of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Importantly, operative volume quotas may fail to reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive depiction of surgical outcomes most relevant to patients. Accordingly, we herein propose a patient-centered textbook outcome (TO) for AAA repair that is analogous to other large magnitude extirpative operations performed in other surgical specialties, and test its feasibility to discriminate hospital performance using Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) volume guidelines. METHODS: All elective open infrarenal AAA repairs (OAR) in the SVS-Vascular Quality Initiative were examined (2009-2022). The primary end point was a TO, defined as a composite of no in-hospital complication or reintervention/reoperation, length of stay of ≤10 days, home discharge, and 1-year survival rates. The discriminatory ability of the TO measure was assessed by comparing centers that did or did not meet the SVS annual OAR volume threshold recommendation (high volume ≥10 OARs/year; low volume <10 OARs/year). Logistic regression and multivariable models adjusted for patient and procedure-related differences. RESULTS: A total of 9657 OARs across 198 centers were analyzed (mean age, 69.5 ± 8.4 years; female, 26%; non-White, 12%). A TO was identified in 44% (n = 4293) of the overall cohort. The incidence of individual TO components included no in-hospital complication (61%), no in-hospital reintervention or reoperation (92%), length of stay of ≤10 days (78%), home discharge (76%), and 1-year survival (91%). Median annual center volume was 6 (interquartile range, 3-10) and a majority of centers did not meet the SVS volume suggested threshold (<10 OARs/year, n = 148 [74%]). However, most patients (6265 of 9657 [65%]) underwent OAR in high-volume hospitals. When comparing high- and low-volume centers, a TO was more likely to occur in high-volume institutions: ≥10 OARs/year (46%) vs <10 OARs/year (42%; P = .0006). The association of a protective effect for higher center volume remained after risk adjustment (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.26; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: TOs for elective OAR reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive patient centered proxy to measure care delivery, consistent with other surgical specialties. Surprisingly, a TO was achieved in <50% of elective AAA cases nationally. Although the likelihood of a TO seems to correlate with SVS center volume recommendations, it more importantly reflects elements which may be prioritized by patients and thus offers insights into further improving real-world AAA care.

Predictors of prolonged length of stay after elective carotid revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative day-one discharge is used as a quality-of-care indicator after carotid revascularization. This study identifies predictors of prolonged length of stay (pLOS), defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after elective carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2016 and 2022 were included in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of pLOS, defined as a postprocedural LOS of >1 day, after each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 118,625 elective cases were included. pLOS was observed in nearly 23.2% of patients undergoing carotid revascularization. Major adverse events, including neurological, cardiac, infectious, and bleeding complications, occurred in 5.2% of patients and were the most significant contributor to pLOS after the three procedures. Age, female sex, non-White race, insurance status, high comorbidity index, prior ipsilateral CEA, non-ambulatory status, symptomatic presentation, surgeries occurring on Friday, and postoperative hypo- or hypertension were significantly associated with pLOS across all three procedures. For CEA, additional predictors included contralateral carotid artery occlusion, preoperative use of dual antiplatelets and anticoagulation, low physician volume (<11 cases/year), and drain use. For TCAR, preoperative anticoagulation use, low physician case volume (<6 cases/year), no protamine use, and post-stent dilatation intraoperatively were associated with pLOS. One-year analysis showed a significant association between pLOS and increased mortality for all three procedures; CEA (hazard ratio [HR],1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.82), TCAR (HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.35-1.80), and TFCAS (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.08-1.64) (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative LOS of more than 1 day is not uncommon after carotid revascularization. Procedure-related complications are the most common drivers of pLOS. Identifying patients who are risk for pLOS highlights quality improvement strategies that can optimize short and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

Learning curve of transfemoral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative registry.

OBJECTIVE: With the recent expansion of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) is expected to play a larger role in the management of carotid disease. Existing research on the tfCAS learning curve, primarily conducted over a decade ago, may not adequately describe the current effect of physician experience on outcomes. Because approximately 30% of perioperative strokes/deaths post-CAS occur after discharge, appropriate thresholds for in-hospital event rates have been suggested to be <4% for symptomatic and <2% for asymptomatic patients. This study evaluates the tfCAS learning curve using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data. METHODS: We identified VQI patients who underwent tfCAS between 2005 and 2023. Each physician's procedures were chronologically grouped into 12 categories, from procedure counts 1-25 to 351+. The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke/death rate; secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI), 30-day mortality, in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (stroke/TIA), and access site complications. The relationship between outcomes and procedure counts was analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test and a generalized linear model with restricted cubic splines. Our results were then validated using a generalized estimating equations model to account for the variability between physicians. RESULTS: We analyzed 43,147 procedures by 2476 physicians. In symptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (procedure counts 1-25 to 351+: 5.2%-1.7%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (5.8%-1.7%), 30-day mortality (4.6%-2.8%), in-hospital stroke/TIA (5.0%-1.1%), and access site complications (4.1%-1.1%) as physician experience increased (all P values < .05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 4% until 235 procedures. Similarly, in asymptomatic patients, there was a decrease in rates of in-hospital stroke/death (2.1%-1.6%), in-hospital stroke/death/MI (2.6%-1.6%), 30-day mortality (1.7%-0.4%), and in-hospital stroke/TIA (2.8%-1.6%) with increasing physician experience (all P values <.05). The in-hospital stroke/death rate remained above 2% until 13 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital stroke/death and 30-day mortality rates after tfCAS decreased with increasing physician experience, showing a lengthy learning curve consistent with previous reports. Given that physicians' early cases may not be included in the VQI, the learning curve was likely underestimated. Nevertheless, a substantially high rate of in-hospital stroke/death was found in physicians' first 25 procedures. With the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage expansion for tfCAS, a significant number of physicians would enter the early stage of the learning curve, potentially leading to increased postoperative complications.

Development of Data Quality Indicators for Improving Hospital International Classification of Diseases-Coded Health Data Quality Globally.

BACKGROUND: Hospital inpatient data, coded using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), is widely used to monitor diseases, allocate resources and funding, and evaluate patient outcomes. As such, hospital data quality should be measured before use; however, currently, there is no standard and international approach to assess ICD-coded data quality. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardized method for assessing hospital ICD-coded data quality that could be applied across countries: Data quality indicators (DQIs). RESEARCH DESIGN: To identify a set of candidate DQIs, we performed an environmental scan, reviewing gray and academic literature on data quality frameworks and existing methods to assess data quality. Indicators from the literature were then appraised and selected through a 3-round Delphi process. The first round involved face-to-face group and individual meetings for idea generation, while the second and third rounds were conducted remotely to collect online ratings. Final DQIs were selected based on the panelists' quantitative and qualitative feedback. SUBJECTS: Participants included international experts with expertise in administrative health data, data quality, and ICD coding. RESULTS: The resulting 24 DQIs encompass 5 dimensions of data quality: relevance, accuracy and reliability; comparability and coherence; timeliness; and Accessibility and clarity. These will help stakeholders (eg, World Health Organization) to assess hospital data quality using the same standard across countries and highlight areas in need of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This novel area of research will facilitate international comparisons of ICD-coded data quality and be valuable to future studies and initiatives aimed at improving hospital administrative data quality.

Hospital-to-Home-Health Transition Quality (H3TQ) Index: Further Evidence on its Validity and Recommendations for Implementation.

BACKGROUND: We developed the Hospital-to-Home-Health Transition Quality (H3TQ) Index for skilled home healthcare (HH) agencies to identify threats to safe, high-quality care transitions in real time. OBJECTIVE: Assess the validity of H3TQ in a large sample across diverse communities. RESEARCH DESIGN: A survey of recently hospitalized older adults referred for skilled HH services and their HH provider at two large HH agencies in Baltimore, MD, and New York, NY. SUBJECTS: There were five hundred eighty-seven participants (309 older adults, 141 informal caregivers, and 137 HH providers). Older adults, caregivers, and HH providers rated 747 unique transitions. Of these, 403 were rated by both the older adult/caregiver and their HH provider, whereas the remaining transitions were rated by either party. MEASURES: Construct, concurrent, and predictive validity were assessed via the overall H3TQ rating, correlation with the care transition measure (CTM), and the Medicare Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS). RESULTS: Proportion of transitions with quality issues as identified by HH providers and older adults/caregivers, respectively; Baltimore 55%, 35%; NYC 43%, 32%. Older adults/caregivers across sites rated their transitions as higher quality than did providers (P<0.05). H3TQ summed scores showed construct validity with the CTM-3 and concurrent validity with OASIS measures. Summed H3TQ scores were not significantly correlated with 30-day ED visits or rehospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The H3TQ identifies care transition quality issues in real-time and demonstrated construct and concurrent validity, but not predictive validity. Findings demonstrate value in collecting multiple perspectives to evaluate care transition quality. Implementing the H3TQ could help identify transition-quality intervention opportunities for HH patients.

Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

Routine data in a primary care performance dashboard, Ethiopia.

Objective: To explore the feasibility of building a primary care performance dashboard using DHIS2 data from Ethiopia's largest urban (Addis Ababa), agrarian (Oromia) and pastoral (Somali) regions. Methods: We extracted 26 data elements reported by 12 062 health facilities to DHIS2 for the period 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. Focusing on indicators of effectiveness, safety and user experience, we built 14 indicators of primary care performance covering reproductive, maternal and child health, human immunodeficiency virus, tuberculosis, noncommunicable disease care and antibiotic prescription. We assessed data completeness by calculating the proportion of facilities reporting each month, and examined the presence of extreme outliers and assessed external validity. Findings: At the regional level, average completeness across all data elements was highest in Addis Ababa (82.9%), followed by Oromia (66.2%) and Somali (52.6%). Private clinics across regions had low completeness, ranging from 38.6% in Somali to 58.7% in Addis Ababa. We found only a few outliers (334 of 816 578 observations) and noted that external validity was high for 11 of 14 indicators of primary care performance. However, the 12-month antiretroviral treatment retention rate and proportions of patients with controlled diabetes or hypertension exhibited poor external validity. Conclusion: The Ethiopian DHIS2 contains information for measuring primary care performance, using simple analytical methods, at national and regional levels and by facility type. Despite remaining data quality issues, the health management information system is an important data source for generating health system performance assessment measures on a national scale.

Assessing the WHO-UNICEF primary health-care measurement framework; Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Objective: To assess the availability of information on indicators of the World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund primary health-care measurement framework in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and to outline the opportunities for and challenges to using the framework in these countries. Methods: We reviewed global and national data repositories for quantitative indicators of the framework and conducted a desk review of country documents for qualitative indicators in February-April 2023. We assessed data sources and cross-sectional survey tools to suggest possible sources of information on framework indicators that were not currently reported in the countries. We also identified specific indicators outside the framework on which information is collected in the countries and which could be used to measure primary health-care performance. Findings: Data on 54% (32/59) of the quantitative indicators were partially or completely available for the countries, ranging from 41% (24/59) in Pakistan to 64% (38/59) in Nepal. Information on 41% (66/163) of the qualitative subindicators could be acquired through desk reviews of country-specific documents. Information on input indicators was more readily available than on process and output indicators. The feasibility of acquiring information on the unreported indicators was moderate to high through adaptation of data collection instruments. Conclusion: The primary health-care measurement framework provides a platform to readily assess and track the performance of primary health care. Countries should improve the completeness, quality and use of existing data for strengthening of primary health care.