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.

Quality indicators for appropriate in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship: An international modified Delphi study.

AIMS: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT). RESULTS: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered. CONCLUSIONS: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.

Data-driven collaborative QUality improvement in Cardiac Rehabilitation (QUICR) to increase program completion: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of deaths and disability worldwide. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) effectively reduces the risk of future cardiac events and is strongly recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, CR program quality is highly variable with divergent data systems, which, when combined, potentially contribute to persistently low completion rates. The QUality Improvement in Cardiac Rehabilitation (QUICR) trial aims to determine whether a data-driven collaborative quality improvement intervention delivered at the program level over 12 months: (1) increases CR program completion in eligible patients with CHD (primary outcome), (2) reduces hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and deaths, and costs, (3) improves the proportion of patients receiving guideline-indicated CR according to national and international benchmarks, and (4) is feasible and sustainable for CR staff to implement routinely. METHODS: QUICR is a multi-centre, type-2, hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with 12-month follow-up. Eligible CR programs (n = 40) and the individual patient data within them (n ~ 2,000) recruited from two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria) are randomized 1:1 to the intervention (collaborative quality improvement intervention that uses data to identify and manage gaps in care) or control (usual care with data collection only). This sample size is required to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in completion rate of 22%. Outcomes will be assessed using intention-to-treat principles. Mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models accounting for clusters within allocated groupings will be applied to analyse primary and secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: Addressing poor participation in CR by patients with CHD has been a longstanding challenge that needs innovative strategies to change the status-quo. This trial will harness the collaborative power of CR programs working simultaneously on common problem areas and using local data to drive performance. The use of data linkage for collection of outcomes offers an efficient way to evaluate this intervention and support the improvement of health service delivery. ETHICS: Primary ethical approval was obtained from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH01093), along with site-specific governance approvals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623001239651 (30/11/2023) ( https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386540&isReview=true ).

A Systematic Review of the Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, and online CPG databases was carried out. Four CPGs on CLTI were identified: Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American College of Cardiology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on lower limb peripheral arterial disease. Two independent appraisers analyzed the 4 CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. CPGs were ranked across 6 domains with 23 items that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A scaled domain score was calculated as a percentage of the maximum possible score achievable. A domain score of ≥50% and an overall average domain score of ≥80% reflected a CPG of adequate quality recommended for use. RESULTS: GVG had the highest overall score (82.9%), as an average of all domains, and ESC had the lowest score (50.2%). GVG and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines had all domains scoring >50%, while American College of Cardiology had 5 and ESC had 3. Two domains, rigor of development and applicability, scored the lowest among the CPGs. There was a lack of detail in describing systematic methods used in the literature review, how guidelines were formulated with minimal bias, and the planned procedure for updating the guidelines. Implications of guideline application and monitoring of outcomes after implementations were not explicitly discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The GVG guideline published in 2019 discussing CLTI is assessed to be of high quality and recommended for use. This review helps to improve clinical decision-making and quality of future CPGs for CLTI.

Appropriateness of Care Measures: A Novel Approach to Quality.

The clinical judgment of a physician is one of the most important aspects of medical quality, yet it is rarely captured with quality measures in use today. We propose a novel approach using individualized physician benchmarking that measures the appropriateness of care that a physician delivers by looking at their practice pattern in a specific clinical situation. A prime application of our novel approach to appropriateness measures is the surgical management of peripheral artery disease and claudication. We discuss 4 potential consensus metrics for the treatment of claudication that explore appropriateness of care of claudication management and are meaningful, actionable, and quantifiable. Given the multitude of medical specialties involved in the care of patients with peripheral artery disease and the consequences of both preemptive and delayed care, it is in all of our interests to promote data transparency with confidential communications to outlier physicians while advocating for evidence-based management.

Lessons Learned from Coronary Revascularization Appropriateness Statements for Application to Peripheral Artery Disease.

Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) are evidence-based criteria developed in a methodologically robust manner with the input of expert providers across a wide range of disciplines and practice settings. AUC have been successfully implemented in the diagnosis and management of a wide range of cardiovascular disease processes. AUC have demonstrated clear potential for influencing meaningful change in practice patterns with regards to high-value, high-quality care in cardiovascular pathologies. Potential for similar impact in the management of peripheral artery disease, specifically for patients presenting with intermittent claudication (IC), may be limited due to unique challenges. These challenges include multidisciplinary interventionalists, variability in existing AUC across specialties, and financial incentives influencing physician behavior. AUC serve to benefit patients by improving outcomes, and adoption of AUC is a critical step toward improving the quality of care provided to patients with IC. Societal support is necessary for effective AUC implementation.

Patient outcome quality indicators for older persons in acute care: original development data using interRAI AC-CGA.

BACKGROUND: A range of strategies are available that can improve the outcomes of older persons particularly in relation to basic activities of daily living during and after an acute care (AC) episode. This paper outlines the original development of outcome-oriented quality indicators (QIs) in relation to common geriatric syndromes and function for the care of the frail aged hospitalized in acute general medical wards. METHODS: Design QIs were developed using evidence from literature, expert opinion, field study data and a formal voting process. A systematic literature review of literature identified existing QIs (there were no outcome QIs) and evidence of interventions that improve older persons' outcomes in AC. Preliminary indicators were developed by two expert panels following consideration of the evidence. After analysis of the data from field testing (indicator prevalence, variability across sites), panel meetings refined the QIs prior to a formal voting process. SETTING: Data was collected in nine Australian general medical wards. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 70 years and over, consented within 24 h of admission to the AC ward. MEASUREMENTS: The interRAI Acute Care - Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (interRAI AC-CGA) was administered at admission and discharge; a daily risk assessment in hospital; 28-day phone follow-up and chart audit. RESULTS: Ten outcome QIs were established which focused on common geriatric syndromes and function for the care of the frail aged hospitalized in acute general medical wards. CONCLUSION: Ten outcome QIs were developed. These QIs can be used to identify areas where specific action will lead to improvements in the quality of care delivered to older persons in hospital.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Colorectal cancer health and care quality indicators in a federated setting using the Personal Health Train.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals and healthcare providers should assess and compare the quality of care given to patients and based on this improve the care. In the Netherlands, hospitals provide data to national quality registries, which in return provide annual quality indicators. However, this process is time-consuming, resource intensive and risks patient privacy and confidentiality. In this paper, we presented a multicentric 'Proof of Principle' study for federated calculation of quality indicators in patients with colorectal cancer. The findings suggest that the proposed approach is highly time-efficient and consume significantly lesser resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two quality indicators are calculated in an efficient and privacy presevering federated manner, by i) applying the Findable Accessible Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles and ii) using the Personal Health Train (PHT) infrastructure. Instead of sharing data to a centralized registry, PHT enables analysis by sending algorithms and sharing only insights from the data. RESULTS: ETL process extracted data from the Electronic Health Record systems of the hospitals, converted them to FAIR data and hosted in RDF endpoints within each hospital. Finally, quality indicators from each center are calculated using PHT and the mean result along with the individual results plotted. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: PHT and FAIR data principles can efficiently calculate quality indicators in a privacy-preserving federated approach and the work can be scaled up both nationally and internationally. Despite this, application of the methodology was largely hampered by ELSI issues. However, the lessons learned from this study can provide other hospitals and researchers to adapt to the process easily and take effective measures in building quality of care infrastructures.

Accreditation of stroke programs at the MENA + region; between aspiration and reality.

INTRODUCTION: Despite global progress in stroke care, challenges persist, especially in Low- and Middle-Income countries (LMIC). The Middle East and North Africa Stroke and Interventional Neurotherapies Organization (MENA-SINO) Stroke Program Accreditation Initiative aims to improve stroke care regionally. MATERIAL & METHOD: A 2022 survey assessed stroke unit readiness in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) + region, revealing significant regional disparities in stroke care between high-income and low-income countries. Additionally, it demonstrated interest in the accreditation procedure and suggested that regional stroke program accreditation will improve stroke care for the involved centers. CONCLUSION: An accreditation program that is specifically tailored to the regional needs in the MENA + countries might be the solution. In this brief review, we will discuss potential challenges faced by such a program and we will put forward a well-defined 5-step accreditation process, beginning with a letter of intent, through processing the request and appointment of reviewers, the actual audit, the certification decisions, and culminating in granting a MIENA-SINO tier-specific certificate with recertification every 5 years.

Assessing regional disparities and vulnerability in stroke care across Gyeonggi Province: A focus on hospital service areas.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to illuminate regional disparities and identify vulnerable areas in stroke care across Gyeonggi Province's hospital service areas. METHODS: Using data from the Korea National Cardio-cerebrovascular Disease Management Commission, we included 4,427 acute stroke patients admitted in 2018 to hospitals within Gyeonggi Province. Our evaluation focused on: 1) stroke care quality indicators, including rates of defect-free care, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), and acute reperfusion therapy (either IVT or EVT); 2) intra-regional treatment rates; and 3) one-year mortality across the province and its 12 hospital service areas. These were compared both with national averages and inter-regionally. Vulnerable areas were pinpointed by evaluating the number of quality indicators falling below the national average and through visual distribution mapping, categorizing each indicator into higher (ranks 1-4), middle (ranks 5-8), and lower (ranks 9-12) tiers. RESULTS: Despite fewer qualified stroke centers and specialists, Gyeonggi Province exhibited higher defect-free care rates (84.6 % vs. 80.7 %), intra-regional treatment rates (57.8 % vs. 51.0 %), and marginally lower one-year mortality (16.2 % vs. 17.3 %) compared to national averages. Notable regional disparities were observed; the highest-performing areas for defect-free care and acute reperfusion therapy exceeded the lowest by 1.4 and 3.3 times, respectively. Nine out of twelve areas fell below the national average for EVT rates, seven for IVT and reperfusion therapy rates, and five for intra-regional treatment rates. Pyeongtaek, with all stroke care quality indicators below the national average coupled with the highest one-year mortality, emerges as a critical area needing improvement in acute stroke care. CONCLUSION: This study not only exposes the regional disparities in stroke care within Gyeonggi Province's hospital service areas but also identifies areas most vulnerable. Consequently, a customized support strategy for these areas is imperative.

The role of stroke care infrastructure on the effectiveness of a hub-and-spoke telestroke model in South Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between stroke care infrastructure and stroke quality-of-care outcomes at 29 spoke hospitals participating in the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) hub-and-spoke telestroke network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Encounter-level data from MUSC's telestroke patient registry were filtered to include encounters during 2015-2022 for patients aged 18 and above with a clinical diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, and who received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time-related stroke quality-of-care metrics captured during the encounter and the existence of the two components of stroke care infrastructure-stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications-across all hospitals and within hospital subgroups defined by size and rurality. RESULTS: Telestroke encounters at spoke hospitals with stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications were associated with shorter door-to-needle (DTN) times (60.9 min for hospitals with both components and 57.3 min for hospitals with one, vs. 81.2 min for hospitals with neither component, p <.001). Similar patterns were observed for the percentage of encounters with DTN time of ≤60 min (63.8% and 68.9% vs. 32.0%, p <.001) and ≤45 min (34.0% and 38.4% vs. 8.42%, p <.001). Associations were similar for other metrics (e.g., door-to-registration time), and were stronger for smaller (vs. larger) hospitals and rural (vs. urban) hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke coordinators or stroke center certifications may be important for stroke quality of care, especially at spoke hospitals with limited resources or in rural areas.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.

Face-Validated Quality Indicators for Appropriateness of End-of-Life Care in Children with Serious Illness: A Study Using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and face-validate population-level indicators for potential appropriateness of end-of-life care, for children with cancer, neurologic conditions, and genetic/congenital conditions, to be applied to administrative health data containing medication and treatment variables. STUDY DESIGN: Modified RAND/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method. We identified potential indicators per illness group through systematic literature review, scoping review, and expert interviews. Three unique expert panels, a cancer (n = 19), neurology (n = 21), and genetic/congenital (n = 17) panel, participated in interviews and rated indicators in individual ratings, group discussions, and second individual ratings. Each indicator was rated on a scale from 1 to 9 for suitability. Consensus was calculated with the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry formula. Indicators with consensus about unsuitability were removed, those with consensus about suitability were retained, and those with lack of consensus deliberated in the group discussion. Experts included pediatricians, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, pharmacologists, care coordinators, general practitioners, social workers from hospitals, care teams, and general practice. RESULTS: Literature review and expert interviews yielded 115 potential indicators for cancer, 111 for neurologic conditions, and 99 for genetic/congenital conditions. We combined similar indicators, resulting in respectively 36, 32, and 33 indicators per group. Expert scoring approved 21 indicators for cancer, 24 for neurologic conditions, and 23 for genetic/congenital conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our indicators can be applied to administrative data to evaluate appropriateness of children's end-of-life care. Differences from adults' indicators stress the specificity of children's end-of-life care. Individual care and remaining aspects, such as family support, can be evaluated with complementary tools.

A statewide quality improvement collaborative significantly improves quality metric adherence and physician engagement in vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement national registries provide structured, clinically relevant outcome and process-of-care data to practitioners-with regional meetings to disseminate best practices. However, whether a quality improvement collaborative affects processes of care is less clear. We examined the effects of a statewide hospital collaborative on the adherence rates to best practice guidelines in vascular surgery. METHODS: A large statewide retrospective quality improvement database was reviewed for 2013 to 2019. Hospitals participating in the quality improvement collaborative were required to submit adherence and outcomes data and meet semiannually. They received an incentive through a pay for participation model. The aggregate adherence rates among all hospitals were calculated and compared. RESULTS: A total of 39 hospitals participated in the collaborative, with attendance of surgeon champions at face-to-face meetings of >85%. Statewide, the hospital systems improved every year of participation in the collaborative across most "best practice" domains, including adherence to preoperative skin preparation recommendations (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-1.79; P < .001), intraoperative antibiotic redosing (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P = .018), statin use at discharge for appropriate patients (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.16-1.2; P < .001), and reducing transfusions for asymptomatic patients with hemoglobin >8 mg/dL (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.66-0.66; P < .001). The use of antiplatelet therapy at discharge remained high and did not change significantly during the study period. Teaching hospital and urban or rural status did not affect adherence. The adherence rates exceeded the professional society mean rates for guideline adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a statewide hospital collaborative with incentivized semiannual meetings resulted in significant improvements in adherence to "best practice" guidelines across a large, heterogeneous group of hospitals.

Assessing a New Prescreening Score for the Simplified Evaluation of the Clinical Quality and Relevance of eHealth Apps: Instrument Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, more than 250 eHealth solutions were added to app stores each day, or 90,000 in the year; however, the vast majority of these solutions have not undergone clinical validation, their quality is unknown, and the user does not know if they are effective and safe. We sought to develop a simple prescreening scoring method that would assess the quality and clinical relevance of each app. We designed this tool with 3 health care stakeholder groups in mind: eHealth solution designers seeking to evaluate a potential competitor or their own tool, investors considering a fundraising candidate, and a hospital clinician or IT department wishing to evaluate a current or potential eHealth solution. OBJECTIVE: We built and tested a novel prescreening scoring tool (the Medical Digital Solution scoring tool). The tool, which consists of 26 questions that enable the quick assessment and comparison of the clinical relevance and quality of eHealth apps, was tested on 68 eHealth solutions. METHODS: The Medical Digital Solution scoring tool is based on the 2021 evaluation criteria of the French National Health Authority, the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations, and other provided scores. We built the scoring tool with patient association and eHealth experts and submitted it to eHealth app creators, who evaluated their apps via the web-based form in January 2022. After completing the evaluation criteria, their apps obtained an overall score and 4 categories of subscores. These criteria evaluated the type of solution and domain, the solution's targeted population size, the level of clinical assessment, and information about the provider. RESULTS: In total, 68 eHealth solutions were evaluated with the scoring tool. Oncology apps (22%, 20/90) and general health solutions (23%, 21/90) were the most represented. Of the 68 apps, 32 (47%) were involved in remote monitoring by health professionals. Regarding clinical outcomes, 5% (9/169) of the apps assessed overall survival. Randomized studies had been conducted for 21% (23/110) of the apps to assess their benefit. Of the 68 providers, 38 (56%) declared the objective of obtaining reimbursement, and 7 (18%) out of the 38 solutions seeking reimbursement were assessed as having a high probability of reimbursement. The median global score was 11.2 (range 4.7-17.4) out of 20 and the distribution of the scores followed a normal distribution pattern (Shapiro-Wilk test: P=.33). CONCLUSIONS: This multidomain prescreening scoring tool is simple, fast, and can be deployed on a large scale to initiate an assessment of the clinical relevance and quality of a clinical eHealth app. This simple tool can help a decision-maker determine which aspects of the app require further analysis and improvement.

The Diagnostic Error Index: A Quality Improvement Initiative to Identify and Measure Diagnostic Errors.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a diagnostic error index (DEI) aimed at providing a practical method to identify and measure serious diagnostic errors. STUDY DESIGN: A quality improvement (QI) study at a quaternary pediatric medical center. Five well-defined domains identified cases of potential diagnostic errors. Identified cases underwent an adjudication process by a multidisciplinary QI team to determine if a diagnostic error occurred. Confirmed diagnostic errors were then aggregated on the DEI. The primary outcome measure was the number of monthly diagnostic errors. RESULTS: From January 2017 through June 2019, 105 cases of diagnostic error were identified. Morbidity and mortality conferences, institutional root cause analyses, and an abdominal pain trigger tool were the most frequent domains for detecting diagnostic errors. Appendicitis, fractures, and nonaccidental trauma were the 3 most common diagnoses that were missed or had delayed identification. CONCLUSIONS: A QI initiative successfully created a pragmatic approach to identify and measure diagnostic errors by utilizing a DEI. The DEI established a framework to help guide future initiatives to reduce diagnostic errors.

Patient Safety Indicators are an insufficient performance metric to track and grade outcomes of open aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: National rankings of hospitals rely on outcomes-based evaluation to assess the performance of surgical programs, particularly those performing high-risk elective surgical procedures such as open aortic repair. Various classification systems exist for tracking outcomes, but increasingly the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision-based Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) are used as a publicly reported comparison measure of hospital quality performance. We sought to critically evaluate the accuracy of the existing vehicles to assess open aortic repair outcomes in an established program. METHODS: This is a case-control study of patients who underwent open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions from 2004 to 2018. Patients' characteristics and outcomes were collected as part of a prospectively maintained retrospective database. For each case, hemorrhagic, cardiac, respiratory, renal, wound, and thromboembolic complications were identified with the unique definitions used for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality PSI initiative. RESULTS: Of the 154 patients included in the study, 79 (51.0%) were identified as having a complication as defined by the VQI, 46 (29.7%) according to the NSQIP, and 15 (9.7%) according to the PSI system (P < .001). Patients most likely to incur a complication in the PSI system were those with a pararenal or more extensive aneurysm, with baseline congestive heart failure, requiring a supramesenteric clamp (all P < .01), or with an aneurysm >6.5 cm in diameter (P = .02). The NSQIP and VQI systems both identified more postoperative hemorrhagic, respiratory, renal, and wound complications than the PSI system did (P < .05). The VQI system identified the most renal complications (52; P < .001); factors unique to incurring a complication in the VQI include use of a suprarenal clamp and performance of an aortorenal bypass procedure as part of the repair (P < .01). Particularly weak correlation was noted between the PSI system and the VQI with respect to renal outcomes (ρ = 0.163). CONCLUSIONS: The PSI system identified fewer important complications than either of the clinically focused databases, with the VQI capturing the most postoperative events, mostly because of its stringent definition of renal injury. We conclude that the PSI system should not form the basis of grading hospital performance in comparing clinically relevant complications of open aortic surgery programs.

Improving clinical documentation of evaluation and management care and patient acuity improves reimbursement as well as quality metrics.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate documentation of patient care and acuity is essential to determine appropriate reimbursement as well as accuracy of key publicly reported quality metrics. We sought to investigate the impact of standardized note templates by inpatient advanced practice providers (APPs) on evaluation and management (E/M) charge capture, including outside of the global surgical package (GSP), and quality metrics including case mix index (CMI) and mortality index (MI). We hypothesized this clinical documentation initiative as well as improved coding of E/M services would result in increased reimbursement and quality metrics. METHODS: A documentation and coding initiative on the heart and vascular service line was initiated in 2016 with focus on improving inpatient E/M capture by APPs outside the GSP. Comprehensive training sessions and standardized documentation templates were created and implemented in the electronic medical record. Subsequent hospital care E/M (current procedural terminology codes 99231, 99232, 99233) from the years 2015 to 2017 were audited and analyzed for charge capture rates, collections, work relative value units (wRVUs), and billing complexity. Data were compared over time by standardizing CMS values and reimbursement rates. In addition, overall CMI and MI were calculated each year. RESULTS: One year following the documentation initiative, E/M charges on the vascular surgery service line increased by 78.5% with a corresponding increase in APP charges from 0.4% of billable E/M services to 70.4% when compared with pre-initiative data. The charge capture of E/M services among all inpatients rose from 21.4% to 37.9%. Additionally, reimbursement from CMS increased by 65% as total work relative value units generated from E/M services rose by 78.4% (797 to 1422). The MI decreased over the study period by 25.4%. Additionally, there was a corresponding 5.6% increase in the cohort CMI. Distribution of E/M encounter charges did not vary significantly. Meanwhile, the prevalence of 14 clinical comorbidities in our cohort as well as length of stay (P = .88) remained non-statistically different throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate clinical documentation of E/M care and ultimately inpatient acuity is critical in determining quality metrics that serve as important measures of overall hospital quality for CMS value-based payments and rankings. A system-based documentation initiative and expanded role of inpatient APPs on vascular surgery teams significantly improved charge capture and reimbursement outside the GSP as well as CMI and MI in a consistently complex patient population.