Identifying Population-Level and Within-Hospital Disparities in Surgical Care.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of consensus on equity measurement and its incorporation into quality-assessment programs at the hospital and system levels may be a barrier to addressing disparities in surgical care. This study aimed to identify population-level and within-hospital differences in the quality of surgical care provision. METHODS: The analysis included 657 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participating hospitals with over 4 million patients (2014-2018). Multi-level random slope, random intercept modeling was used to examine for population-level and in-hospital disparities. Disparities in surgical care by Area Deprivation Index (ADI), race, and ethnicity were analyzed for five measures: all-case inpatient mortality, all-case urgent readmission, all-case postoperative surgical site infection, colectomy mortality, and spine surgery complications. RESULTS: Population-level disparities were identified across all measures by ADI, two measures for Black race (all-case readmissions and spine surgery complications), and none for Hispanic ethnicity. Disparities remained significant in the adjusted models. Prior to risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, within-hospital disparities were detected in: 25.8-99.8% of hospitals for ADI, 0-6.1% of hospitals for Black race, and 0-0.8% of hospitals for Hispanic ethnicity. Following risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, fewer than 1.1% of hospitals demonstrated disparities by ADI, race, or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Following risk adjustment, very few hospitals demonstrated significant disparities in care. Disparities were more frequently detected by ADI than by race and ethnicity. The lack of substantial in-hospital disparities may be due to the use of postoperative metrics, small sample sizes, the risk adjustment methodology, and healthcare segregation. Further work should examine surgical access and healthcare segregation.

Development and Validation of a Novel Literature-Based Method to Identify Disparity-Sensitive Surgical Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Disparity in surgical care impedes the delivery of uniformly high-quality care. Metrics that quantify disparity in care can help identify areas for needed intervention. A literature-based Disparity-Sensitive Score (DSS) system for surgical care was adapted by the Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery (MEASUR) group. The alignment between the MEASUR DSS and Delphi ratings of an expert advisory panel (EAP) regarding the disparity sensitivity of surgical quality metrics was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Using DSS criteria MEASUR co-investigators scored 534 surgical metrics which were subsequently rated by the EAP. All scores were converted to a 9-point scale. Agreement between the new measurement technique (ie DSS) and an established subjective technique (ie importance and validity ratings) were assessed using the Bland-Altman method, adjusting for the linear relationship between the paired difference and the paired average. The limit of agreement (LOA) was set at 1.96 SD (95%). RESULTS: The percentage of DSS scores inside the LOA was 96.8% (LOA, 0.02 points) for the importance rating and 94.6% (LOA, 1.5 points) for the validity rating. In comparison, 94.4% of the 2 subjective EAP ratings were inside the LOA (0.7 points). CONCLUSIONS: Applying the MEASUR DSS criteria using available literature allowed for identification of disparity-sensitive surgical metrics. The results suggest that this literature-based method of selecting quality metrics may be comparable to more complex consensus-based Delphi methods. In fields with robust literature, literature-based composite scores may be used to select quality metrics rather than assembling consensus panels.

Disparity-Sensitive Measures in Surgical Care: A Delphi Panel Consensus.

BACKGROUND: In the US, disparities in surgical care impede the delivery of uniformly high-quality care to all patients. There is a lack of disparity-sensitive measures related to surgical care. The American College of Surgeons Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery group, through research and expert consensus, aimed to identify disparity-sensitive measures in surgical care. STUDY DESIGN: An environmental scan, systematic literature review, and subspecialty society surveys were conducted to identify potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. A modified Delphi process was conducted where panelists rated measures on both importance and validity. In addition, a novel literature-based disparity-sensitive scoring process was used. RESULTS: We identified 841 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. From these, our Delphi and literature-based approaches yielded a consensus list of 125 candidate disparity-sensitive measures. These measures were rated as both valid and important and were supported by the existing literature. CONCLUSION: There are profound disparities in surgical care within the US healthcare system. A multidisciplinary Delphi panel identified 125 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures that could be used to track health disparities, evaluate the impact of focused interventions, and reduce healthcare inequity.

The Path Forward: Using Metrics to Promote Equitable Work Environments.

Women continue to be underrepresented in medicine, especially in senior leadership positions, and they experience challenges related to gender bias and sexual harassment. Women who are members of multiple groups that experience marginalization, including, for example, women who are American Indian, Alaskan native, indigenous, Black, or Hispanic, face a compounded challenge. In this article, we explore how institutions and professional organizations in medicine can use metrics to better understand the structural disparities that create and promote gender inequity in the work environment and how to employ these metrics to track progress in narrowing these gaps. Examples in health care (clinical medicine, scientific organizations, scientific publishing), business, and law are used to illustrate how impactful metrics can promote accountability when coupled with transparent reporting.

Linking Spending and Quality Indicators to Measure Value and Efficiency in Health Care.

Policy makers and stakeholders have reached a consensus that both quality and spending or resource use indicators should be jointly measured and prioritized to meet the objectives of our health system. However, the relative merits of alternative approaches that combine quality and spending indicators are not well understood. We conducted a literature review to identify different approaches that combine indicators of quality and spending measures to profile provider efficiency in the context of specific applications in health care. Our investigation identified seven alternative models that are either in use or have been proposed to evaluate provider efficiency. We then used publicly available data to profile hospitals using these approaches. Profiles of hospital efficiency using alternative models yielded wide variation in performance, underscoring the importance of model selection. By identifying the current efficiency models and evaluating their trade-offs within specific programmatic contexts, our analysis informs stakeholder and policy maker decisions about how to link quality and spending indicators when measuring efficiency in health care.

African American church participation and health care practices.

BACKGROUND: While religious involvement is associated with improvements in health, little is known about the relationship between church participation and health care practices. OBJECTIVES: To determine 1) the prevalence of church participation; 2) whether church participation influences positive health care practices; and 3) whether gender, age, insurance status, and levels of comorbidity modified these relationships. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis using survey data from 2196 residents of a low-income, African-American neighborhood. MEASUREMENTS: Our independent variable measured the frequency of church attendance. Dependent variables were: 1) Pap smear; 2) mammogram; and 3) dental visit-all taking place within 2 years; 4) blood pressure measurement within 1 year, 5) having a regular source of care, and 6) no perceived delays in care in the previous year. We controlled for socioeconomic factors and the number of comorbid conditions and also tested for interactions. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of community members went to church at least monthly. Church attendance was associated with increased likelihood of positive health care practices by 20% to 80%. In multivariate analyses, church attendance was related to dental visits (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 1.9) and blood pressure measurements (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.1). Insurance status and number of comorbid conditions modified the relationship between church attendance and Pap smear, with increased practices noted for the uninsured (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.1) and for women with 2 or more comorbid conditions (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.5). CONCLUSION: Church attendance is an important correlate of positive health care practices, especially for the most vulnerable subgroups, the uninsured and chronically ill. Community- and faith-based organizations present additional opportunities to improve the health of low-income and minority populations.

Predictors and outcomes of frequent emergency department users.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors and outcomes associated with frequent emergency department (ED) users. METHODS: Cross-sectional intake surveys, medical chart reviews, and telephone follow-up interviews of patients presenting with selected chief complaints were performed at five urban EDs during a one-month study period in 1995. Frequent use was defined by four or more self-reported, prior ED visits. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of frequent ED visitors from five domains (demographics, health status, health access, health care preference, and severity of acute illness). Associations between high use and selected outcomes were assessed with logistic regression models. RESULTS: All study components were completed by 2,333 of 3,455 eligible patients (67.5%). Demographics predicting frequent use included being a single parent, single or divorced marital status, high school education or less, and income of less than $10,000 (1995). Health status predictors included hospitalization in the preceding three months, high ratings of psychological distress, and asthma. Health access predictors included identifying an ED or a hospital clinic as the primary care site, having a primary care physician (PCP), and visiting a PCP in the past month. Choosing the ED for free care was the only health preference predictive of heavy use. Illness severity measures were higher in frequent visitors, although these were not independently predictive in the multivariate model. Outcomes correlated with heavy use include increased hospital admissions, higher rates of ED return visits, and lower patient satisfaction, but not willingness to return to the ED or follow-up with a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED visits are associated with socioeconomic distress, chronic illness, and high use of other health resources. Efforts to reduce ED visits require addressing the unique needs of these patients in the emergency and primary care settings.

Ambulatory patient safety. What we know and need to know.

While safety risks are widespread in ambulatory settings, there has been insufficient attention directed at developing the evidence base that is needed to improve ambulatory safety. In this article, the current state of knowledge about ambulatory safety is reviewed. A research agenda in ambulatory safety is proposed, as well as a series of potential interventions that could be used to improve safety in the ambulatory setting.

Influence of body weight on patients' satisfaction with ambulatory care.

Patients with obesity experience psychosocial consequences because of their weight and report physician bias. We examined whether obesity is associated with lower patient satisfaction with ambulatory care among 2,858 patients seen at 11 academically affiliated primary care practices in Boston. Compared with normal weight patients (body mass index [BMI], 19.0 to 24.9 kg/M 2), overweight (BMI, 25.0 to 29.9 kg/M 2) and obese patients (BMI > or =30 kg/M 2) reported lower overall satisfaction scores at their most recent visit; the scores were 85.5, 85.0, and 82.6 out a possible 100, respectively (P =.05). After adjustment for potential confounders including illness burden, obese patients reported lower scores but the difference was not statistically significant (mean difference, 1.23 [95% confidence interval -0.67 to 3.12]). Patient satisfaction with their usual provider and their practice did not vary by BMI group. Obesity is associated with only modest decreases in satisfaction scores with the most recent visit, which were explained largely by higher illness burden among obese patients.

Inconsistent report cards: assessing the comparability of various measures of the quality of ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Report cards based on various performance measures have become increasingly common for rating hospitals and health care plans. However, little has been done to create report cards at the ambulatory clinic level, nor has there been much comparison of the potential components of report cards. OBJECTIVES: To create a report card for ambulatory clinics based on different data collection methods and to assess the correlations of clinic scores across various domains of quality. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional chart review (n = 3614), patient (n = 2180), and physician surveys (n = 169). SUBJECTS: Sample of outpatients ages 20 to 75 and their primary care providers in 11 ambulatory clinic sites in the Boston-area from May 1996 to June 1997. MEASURES: Performance on various quality indicators for each site. RESULTS: Report card scores for five quality domains (performance on HEDIS-like measures, clinic function, patient satisfaction, diabetes guideline compliance, asthma guideline compliance) were created for each site. None of the five domain scores were significantly correlated with any of the other domains. In addition, there was substantial intraclinic variation in domain scores when compared with the corresponding mean domain score across all clinics. Additional clinic domain scores were created by limiting measures to those found on chart review or survey alone. The chart review and survey domain scores for each clinic were also not significantly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Report cards that emphasize only one domain of quality or use limited data collection methods may provide incomplete or inconsistent information to health care consumers about the overall quality of an outpatient clinic.