Acute care pathway assessed through performance indicators during the COVID-19 pandemic in OECD countries (2020-2021): a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted care for non-COVID patients. Performance indicators to monitor acute care, timely reported and internationally accepted, lacked during the pandemic in OECD countries. This study aims to summarize the performance indicators available in the literature to monitor changes in the quality of acute care in OECD countries during the first year and a half of the pandemic (2020-July 2021) and to assess their trends. METHODS: Scoping review. Search in Embase and MEDLINE (07-07-2022). Acute care performance indicators and indicators related to acute general surgery were collected and collated following a care pathway approach. Indicators assessing identical clinical measures were grouped under a common indicator title. The trends from each group of indicators were collated (increase/decrease/stable). RESULTS: A total of 152 studies were included. 2354 indicators regarding general acute care and 301 indicators related to acute general surgery were included. Indicators focusing on pre-hospital services reported a decreasing trend in the volume of patients: from 225 indicators, 110 (49%) reported a decrease. An increasing trend in pre-hospital treatment times was reported by most of the indicators (n = 41;70%) and a decreasing trend in survival rates of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (n = 61;75%). Concerning care provided in the emergency department, most of the indicators (n = 752;71%) showed a decreasing trend in admissions across all levels of urgency. Concerning the mortality rate after admission, most of the indicators (n = 23;53%) reported an increasing trend. The subset of indicators assessing acute general surgery showed a decreasing trend in the volume of patients (n = 50;49%), stability in clinical severity at admission (n = 36;53%), and in the volume of surgeries (n = 14;47%). Most of the indicators (n = 28;65%) reported no change in treatment approach and stable mortality rate (n = 11,69%). CONCLUSION: This review signals relevant disruptions across the acute care pathway. A subset of general surgery performance indicators showed stability in most of the phases of the care pathway. These results highlight the relevance of assessing this care pathway more regularly and systematically across different clinical entities to monitor disruptions and to improve the resilience of emergency services during a crisis.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences Assessment in Women with Breast Cancer: Portuguese Case Study.

In 2020, female breast cancer was the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide, representing the type of cancer with the highest incidence among women and the second most common cause of cancer death among women in all OECD countries. The conventional measures addressing the burden of breast cancer by measuring mortality, incidence, and survival do not entirely reflect the quality of life and patients experience when receiving breast cancer care. The main objective of this study is to capture patient-reported outcomes and experiences in women with breast cancer in Portugal using methods developed for international benchmarking purposes, such as the OECD Patient-reported Indicators Surveys. The study included 378 women with breast cancer, with the age distribution being 19.8% aged 15 to 49 years and 80.2% aged 50 years and over. The data collection procedure and analysis followed the "OECD Breast Cancer Patient Reported Outcomes Working Group" protocol, allowing subsequent comparability with data from other OECD member countries. Most women were satisfied with the treatment outcome regarding the shape of their lumpectomy breast when wearing a bra (96.1%) and with the equal size of both breasts (78.3%). Findings on the WHO QOL-BREF showed that women manifest a lower score in well-being when compared with the general population or populations living with chronic diseases. This study shows the feasibility of implementing and using patient-reported metrics (PROM and PREM) in breast cancer services in Portugal. Measuring PROMs and PREMs from Portuguese women receiving breast cancer care provides insightful evidence into the quality and value of cancer care.

Changes in the quality of cancer care as assessed through performance indicators during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer comprises a high burden on health systems. Performance indicators monitoring cancer outcomes are routinely used in OECD countries. However, the development of process and cancer-pathway based information is essential to guide health care delivery, allowing for better monitoring of changes in the quality of care provided. Assessing the changes in the quality of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic requires a structured approach considering the high volume of publications. This study aims to summarize performance indicators used in the literature to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care (January-June 2020) in OECD countries and to assess changes in the quality of care as reported via selected indicators. METHODS: Search conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases. Performance indicators and their trends were collated according to the cancer care pathway. RESULTS: This study included 135 articles, from which 1013 indicators were retrieved. Indicators assessing the diagnostic process showed a decreasing trend: from 33 indicators reporting on screening, 30 (91%) signalled a decrease during the pandemic (n = 30 indicators, 91%). A reduction was also observed in the number of diagnostic procedures (n = 64, 58%) and diagnoses (n = 130, 89%). The proportion of diagnoses in the emergency setting and waiting times showed increasing trends (n = 8, 89% and n = 14, 56%, respectively). A decreasing trend in the proportion of earliest stage cancers was reported by 63% of indicators (n = 9), and 70% (n = 43) of indicators showed an increasing trend in the proportion of advanced-stage cancers. Indicators reflecting the treatment process signalled a reduction in the number of procedures: 79%(n = 82) of indicators concerning surgeries, 72%(n = 41) of indicators assessing radiotherapy, and 93%(n = 40) of indicators related to systemic therapies. Modifications in cancer treatment were frequently reported: 64%(n = 195) of indicators revealed changes in treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a summary of performance indicators used in the literature to assess the cancer care pathway from January 2020 to June 2020 in OECD countries, and the changes in the quality of care signalled by these indicators. The trends reported inform on potential bottlenecks of the cancer care pathway. Monitoring this information closely could contribute to identifying moments for intervention during crises.

Implementing structured follow-up of neonatal and paediatric patients: an evaluation of three university hospital case studies using the functional resonance analysis method.

BACKGROUND: In complex critical neonatal and paediatric clinical practice, little is known about long-term patient outcomes and what follow-up care is most valuable for patients. Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC (Netherlands), implemented a follow-up programme called Follow Me for neonatal and paediatric patient groups, to gain more insight into long-term outcomes and to use such outcomes to implement a learning cycle for clinical practice, improve follow-up care and facilitate research. Three departments initiated re-engineering and change processes. Each introduced multidisciplinary approaches to long-term follow-up, including regular standardised check-ups for defined age groups, based on medical indicators, developmental progress, and psychosocial outcomes in patients and their families. This research evaluates the implementation of the three follow-up programmes, comparing predefined procedures (work-as-imagined) with how the programmes were implemented in practice (work-as-done). METHODS: This study was conducted in 2019-2020 in the outpatient settings of the neonatal intensive care, paediatric intensive care and paediatric surgery departments of Emma Children's Hospital. It focused on the organisational structure of the follow-up care. The functional resonance analysis method (FRAM) was applied, using documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, observations and feedback sessions. RESULTS: One work-as-imagined model and four work-as-done models were described. The results showed vast data collection on medical, developmental and psychosocial indicators in all work-as-done models; however, process indicators for programme effectiveness and performance were missing. In practice there was a diverse allocation of roles and responsibilities and their interrelations to create a multidisciplinary team; there was no one-size-fits-all across the different departments. Although control and feedback loops for long-term outcomes were specified with respect to the follow-up groups within the programmes, they were found to overlap and misalign with other internal and external long-term outcome monitoring practices. CONCLUSION: Implementing structured long-term follow-up may provide insights for improving daily practice and follow-up care, with the precondition of standardised measurements. Lessons learned from practice are (1) to address fragmentation in data collection and storage, (2) to incorporate the diverse ways to create a multidisciplinary team in practice, and (3) to include timely actionable indicators on programme effectiveness and performance, alongside medical, developmental and psychosocial indicators.

Association of Postoperative Infections After Fractures With Long-term Income Among Adults.

Importance: Postoperative infections after a fracture exert tremendous costs on the health care system. However, the patient economic burden associated with a postoperative infection is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between a postoperative infection and long-term income among patients with surgically treated fractures. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study linked academic trauma center data with Maryland tax records using inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate between-group differences among 11 673 adults who underwent surgery to treat fractures of the extremities or pelvis between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016. Statistical analysis was performed from November 5, 2019, to August 30, 2020. Exposure: A postoperative infection within 1 year of injury. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the annual household income up to 6 years after injury. Household income incorporates multiple types of income, including wage earnings, taxable Social Security benefits, workers' compensation, and disability benefits. Secondary outcomes included individual earnings, Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits, and catastrophic income loss. Results: The study included 11 673 patients (7756 male patients [66.4%]; mean [SD] age, 45.2 [19.2] years) with a mean (SD) preinjury household income of $30 505 ($89 030). A total of 403 patients (3.5%) had a postoperative infection. Postoperative infections were associated with a $6080 annual decrease (95% CI, -$12 114 to -$47; P = .048) in household income in the 6 years after injury. Postoperative infections were associated with a 6.6% increase (95% CI, 4.9%-8.3%; P < .001) in the risk of catastrophic wage loss within 2 years of the fracture and were associated with a 45% increase in the odds of receiving Social Security benefits (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.25-1.68; P < .001). However, incurring a postoperative infection was not associated with an increase in the value of the Social Security benefits received. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that postoperative infections have significant and sustained income-associated implications for patients who experience a fracture. Current Social Security mechanisms may not offset the decreased income.

Patients Place More of an Emphasis on Physical Recovery Than Return to Work or Financial Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare models aim to incentivize healthcare providers to offer interventions that address determinants of health. Understanding patient priorities for physical and socioeconomic recovery after injury can help determine which services and resources are most useful to patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do trauma patients consistently identify a specific aspect/domain of recovery as being most important at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after an injury? (2) Does the relative importance of those domains change within the first year after injury? (3) Are differences in priorities greater between patients than for a given patient over time? (4) Are different recovery priorities associated with identifiable biopsychosocial factors? METHODS: Between June 2018 and December 2018, 504 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis were surgically treated at the study site. For this prospective longitudinal study, we purposefully sampled patients from 6 of the 12 orthopaedic attendings' postoperative clinics. The participating surgeons surgically treated 243 adult patients with fractures of the extremities or pelvis. Five percent (11 of 243) of patients met inclusion criteria but missed their appointments during the 6-week recruitment window and could not be consented. We excluded 4% (9 of 243) of patients with a traumatic brain injury, 1% (2) of patients with a spinal cord injury, and 5% (12) of non-English-speaking patients (4% Spanish speaking [10]; 1% other languages [2]). Eighty-six percent of eligible patients (209 of 243) were approached for consent, and 5% (11 of 209) of those patients refused to participate. All remaining 198 patients consented and completed the baseline survey; 83% (164 of 198 patients) completed at least 6 months of follow-up, and 68% (134 of 198 patients) completed the 12-month assessment. The study participants' mean age was 44 ± 17 years, and 63% (125 of 198) were men. The primary outcome was the patient's recovery priorities, assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after fracture using a discrete choice experiment. Discrete choice experiments are a well-established method for eliciting decisional preferences. In this technique, respondents are presented with a series of hypothetical scenarios, described by a set of plausible attributes or outcomes, and asked to select their preferred scenario. We used hierarchical Bayesian modeling to calculate individual-level estimates of the relative importance of physical recovery, work-related recovery, and disability benefits, based on the discrete choice experiment responses. The hierarchical Bayesian model improves upon more commonly used regression techniques by accounting for the observed response patterns of individual patients and the sequence of scenarios presented in the discrete choice experiment when calculating the model estimates. We computed the coefficient of variation for the three recovery domains and compared the between-patient versus within-patient differences using asymptotic tests. Separate prognostic models were fit for each of the study's three recovery domains to assess marginal changes in the importance of the recovery domain based on patient characteristics and factors that remained constant over the study (such as sex or preinjury work status) and patient characteristics and factors that varied over the study (including current work status or patient-reported health status). We previously published the 6-week results. This paper expands upon the prior publication to evaluate longitudinal changes in patient recovery priorities. RESULTS: Physical recovery was the respondents' main priority at all three timepoints, representing 60% ± 9% of their overall concern. Work-related recovery and access to disability benefits were of secondary importance and were associated with 27% ± 6% and 13% ± 7% of the patients' concern, respectively. The patients' concern for physical recovery was 6% (95% CrI 4% to 7%) higher at 12 months after fracture that at 6 weeks postfracture. The mean concern for work-related recovery increased by 7% (95% CrI 6% to 8%) from 6 weeks to 6 months after injury. The mean importance of disability benefits increased by 2% (95% CrI 1% to 4%) from 6 weeks to 6 months and remained 2% higher (95% CrI 0% to 3%) at 12 months after the injury. Differences in priorities were greater within a given patient over time than between patients as measured using the coefficient of variation (physical recovery [245% versus 7%; p < 0.001], work-related recovery [678% versus 12%; p < 0.001], and disability benefits [620% versus 33%; p < 0.001]. There was limited evidence that biopsychosocial factors were associated with variation in recovery priorities. Patients' concern for physical recovery was 2% higher for every 10-point increase in their Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) physical health status score (95% CrI 1% to 3%). A 10-point increase in the patient's PROMIS mental health status score was associated with a 1% increase in concern for work-related recovery (95% CrI 0% to 2%). CONCLUSION: Work-related recovery and accessing disability benefits were a secondary concern compared with physical recovery in the 12 months after injury for patients with fractures. However, the importance of work-related recovery was elevated after the subacute phase. Priorities were highly variable within a given patient in the year after injury compared with between-patient differences. Given this variation, orthopaedic surgeons should consider assessing and reassessing the socioeconomic well-being of their patients throughout their continuum of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Appropriateness, effectiveness and safety of care delivered in Canadian hospitals: a longitudinal assessment on the utility of publicly reported performance trend data between 2012-2013 and 2016-2017.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the utility of publicly reported performance trend results of Canadian hospitals (by hospital size/type and jurisdiction). DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study. SETTING: 489 hospitals in Canada between fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2016-2017. PARTICIPANTS: Analysis focused on indicator results of individual Canadian hospitals. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Eight outcome indicators of hospital performance: in-hospital mortality (2), readmissions (4) and adverse events (2). Performance trend outcomes of improving, weakening or no change over time. Comparators in performance by hospital size/type of above, below or same as average. RESULTS: At the national level, between 2012-2013 and 2016-2017, Canadian hospitals largely reduced in-hospital mortality: hospital deaths (hospital standardised mortality ratio) -9%; hospital deaths following major surgery -11.1%. Conversely, readmission to hospital increased nationwide: medical 1.5%; obstetric 5%; patients aged 19 years and younger 4.6% and surgical 3%. In-hospital sepsis declined -7.1%. Approximately 10% of the 489 hospitals in this study had a trend of improving performance over time (n=49) in one or more indicators, and a similar number showed a weakening performance over time (n=52). Roughly half of the hospitals in this study (n=224) had no change in performance over time for at least four out of the eight indicators. No single hospital had an improving or weakening trend in more than two indicators. Teaching and larger-sized hospitals showed a higher ratio of improving performance compared with smaller-sized hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of Canadian hospital performance through eight indicators shows improvement of in-hospital mortality and in-hospital sepsis, but rising rates of readmissions. Subdividing the analysis by hospital size/type shows greater instances of improvement in teaching and larger-sized hospitals. There is no clear pattern of a particular province/territory with a significant number of hospitals with improving or weakening trends. The overall assessment of trends of improving and weakening as presented in this study can be used more systematically in monitoring progress.

Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators. RESULTS: A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature. CONCLUSION: Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact.

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The notion of 'fact-free politics' is debated in Europe and the United States of America and has particular relevance for the use of evidence to underpin health and healthcare policies. To better understand how evidence on health and healthcare is used in the national policy-making process in the Netherlands, we explore how different statistics are used in various policy debates on health and healthcare in the Dutch government and parliament. METHODS: We chose eight ongoing policy debates as case studies representing the subject categories of morbidity, lifestyle, healthcare expenditure and healthcare outcomes, including (1) breast cancer screening rates, prevalence and incidence, (2) dementia prevalence and incidence, (3) prevalence of alcohol use by pregnant women, (4) mobility and school sports participation in children, (5) costs of smoking, (6) Dutch national healthcare expenditure, (7) hospital mortality rates, and (8) bedsore prevalence. Using selected keywords for each policy debate case, we performed a document search to identify documentation of the debates (2014-2016) on the websites of the Dutch government and parliament. We retrieved 163 documents and examined the policy debate cases through a content analyses approach. RESULTS: Sources of the statistics used in policy debates were primarily government funded. We identified two distinct functions, i.e. rhetorical and managerial use of statistics. The function of the debate is rhetorical when the specific statistic is used for agenda-setting or to convince the reader of the importance of a topic. The function of the debate is managerial when statistics determine planning, monitoring or evaluation of policy. When evaluating a specific policy, applied statistics were mostly the result of routine or standardised data collection. When policy-makers use statistics for a managerial function, the policy debate mirrors terms derived from scientific debates. CONCLUSION: While statistics used for rhetorical functions do not seem to invite critical reflection, when the function of the debate is managerial, i.e. to plan, monitor or evaluate healthcare, their construction does receive attention. Considering the current role of statistics in rhetorical and managerial debates, there is a need to be cautious of too much leniency towards the technocratic process in exchange for the democratic debate.

Mapping standard ophthalmic outcome sets to metrics currently reported in eight eye hospitals.

BACKGROUND: To determine alignment of proposed international standard outcomes sets for ophthalmic conditions to metrics currently reported by eye hospitals. METHODS: Mixed methods comparative benchmark study, including eight eye hospitals in Australia, India, Singapore, Sweden, U.K., and U.S. All are major international tertiary care and training centers in ophthalmology. Main outcome measure is consistency of ophthalmic outcomes measures reported. RESULTS: International agreed standard outcomes (ICHOM) sets are available for cataract surgery (10 metrics) and macular degeneration (7 metrics). The eight hospitals reported 22 different metrics for cataract surgery and 2 for macular degeneration, which showed only limited overlap with the proposed ICHOM metrics. None of the hospitals reported patient reported visual functioning or vision-related quality of life outcomes measures (PROMs). Three hospitals (38%) reported rates for uncomplicated cataract surgeries only. There was marked variation in how and at what point postoperatively visual outcomes following cataract, cornea, glaucoma, strabismus and oculoplastics procedures were reported. Seven (87.5%) measured post-operative infections and four (50%) measured 30 day unplanned reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes reporting for ophthalmic conditions currently widely varies across hospitals internationally and does not include patient-reported outcomes. Reaching consensus on measures and consistency in data collection will allow meaningful comparisons and provide an evidence base enabling improved sharing of "best practices" to improve eye care globally. Implementation of international standards is still a major challenge and practice-based knowledge on measures should be one of the inputs of the international standardization process.

Volume-outcome revisited: The effect of hospital and surgeon volumes on multiple outcome measures in oesophago-gastric cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Most studies showing a volume outcome effect in resection surgery for oesophago-gastric cancer were conducted before the centralisation of clinical services. This study evaluated the relation between hospital- and surgeon volume and different risk-adjusted outcomes after oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer surgery in England between 2011 and 2013. METHODS: In data from the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit from the UK, multivariable random-effects logistic regression models were used to quantify the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on three outcomes: 30-day and 90-day mortality and anastomotic leakage. The models included patient risk factors to adjust for differences in case-mix among hospitals and surgeons. The between-cluster heterogeneity was estimated with the median odds ratio (MOR). RESULTS: The study included patients treated at 42 hospitals and 329 surgeons. The median (interquartile range) of the annual hospital and surgeon volumes were 110 patients (82 to 137) and 13 patients (8 to 19), respectively. The overall rates for 30-day and 90-day mortality were 2.3% and 4.4% respectively, and the anastomotic leakage was 6.3%. Higher hospital volume was associated with lower 30-day mortality (OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.98) and lower anastomotic leakage rates (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93-0.98) but not 90-day mortality. Higher surgeon volume was only associated with lower anastomotic leakage rates (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72-0.92). Hospital volume explained a part of the between-hospital variation in 30-day mortality whereas surgeon volume explained part of the between-hospital variation in anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of centralized O-G cancer surgery in England, we could still observe an effect of volume on short-term outcomes. However, the effect is inconsistent, depending on the type of outcome measure under consideration, and much smaller than in previous studies. Efforts to centralise O-G cancer services further should carefully address the effects of both hospital and surgeon volume on the range of outcome measures that are relevant to patients.

Are performance indicators used for hospital quality management: a qualitative interview study amongst health professionals and quality managers in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are under increasing pressure to share indicator-based performance information. These indicators can also serve as a means to promote quality improvement and boost hospital performance. Our aim was to explore hospitals' use of performance indicators for internal quality management activities. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study among 72 health professionals and quality managers in 14 acute care hospitals in The Netherlands. Concentrating on orthopaedic and oncology departments, our goal was to gain insight into data collection and use of performance indicators for two conditions: knee and hip replacement surgery and breast cancer surgery. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and summarised. Based on the data, themes were synthesised and the analyses were executed systematically by two analysts independently. The findings were validated through comparison. RESULTS: The hospitals we investigated collect data for performance indicators in different ways. Similarly, these hospitals have different ways of using such data to support their quality management, while some do not seem to use the data for this purpose at all. Factors like 'linking pin champions', pro-active quality managers and engaged medical specialists seem to make a difference. In addition, a comprehensive hospital data infrastructure with electronic patient records and robust data collection software appears to be a prerequisite to produce reliable external performance indicators for internal quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals often fail to use performance indicators as a means to support internal quality management. Such data, then, are not used to its full potential. Hospitals are recommended to focus their human resource policy on 'linking pin champions', the engagement of professionals and a pro-active quality manager, and to invest in a comprehensive data infrastructure. Furthermore, the differences in data collection processes between Dutch hospitals make it difficult to draw comparisons between outcomes of performance indicators.

Reporting and use of the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators at national and regional level in 15 countries.

QUALITY PROBLEM OR ISSUE: OECD member states are involved since 2003 in a project coordinated by the OECD on Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI). All OECD countries are biennially requested by the OECD to deliver national data on the quality indicators for international benchmarking purposes. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: Currently, there is no knowledge whether the OECD HCQI information is used by the countries themselves for healthcare system accountability and improvement purposes. CHOICE OF SOLUTION: The objective of the study is to explore the reporting and use of OECD HCQI in OECD member-states. IMPLEMENTATION: Data were collected through a questionnaire sent to all OECD member-states containing factual questions on the reporting on all OECD HCQ-indicators. Responses were received between June and December 2014. In this timeframe, two reminders were sent to the participants. The work progress was presented during HCQI Meetings in November 2014 and May 2015. EVALUATION: Fifteen countries reported to have a total of 163 reports in which one or more HCQIs were reported. One hundred and sixteen were national and 47 were regional reports. Forty-nine reports had a general system focus, 80 were disease specific, 10 referred to a specific type of care setting, 22 were thematic and 2 were a combination of two (disease specific for a particular type of care and thematic for a specific type of care). Most reports were from Canada: 49. All 15 countries use one or more OECD indicators. LESSONS LEARNED: The OECD quality indicators have acquired a clear place in national and regional monitoring activities. Some indicators are reported more often than others. These differences partly reflect differences between healthcare systems. Whereas some indicators have become very common, such as cancer care indicators, others, such as mental healthcare and patient experience indicators are relatively new and require some more time to be adopted more widely.

Shared Care in Monitoring Stable Glaucoma Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Comparing the quality of care provided by a hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up unit with care as usual. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included stable glaucoma patients and patients at risk for developing glaucoma. Patients in the Usual Care group (n=410) were seen by glaucoma specialists. In the glaucoma follow-up unit group (n=405), patients visited the glaucoma follow-up unit twice followed by a visit to a glaucoma specialist. The main outcome measures were: compliance to the working protocol by glaucoma follow-up unit employees; difference in intraocular pressure between baseline and at ≥18 months; and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Glaucoma follow-up unit employees closely adhered to the working protocol for the measurement of intraocular pressure, visual acuity and GDx (≥97.5% of all visits). Humphrey Field Analyzer examinations were not performed as frequently as prescribed by the working protocol, but more often than in the Usual Care group. In a small minority of patients that required back-referral, the protocol was disregarded, notably when criteria were only slightly exceeded. There was no statistically significant difference in changes in intraocular pressure between the 2 treatment groups (P=0.854). Patients were slightly more satisfied with the glaucoma follow-up unit employees than with the glaucoma specialists (scores: 8.56 vs. 8.40; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the hospital-based shared care glaucoma follow-up closely observed its working protocol and patients preferred it slightly over the usual care provided by medical doctors. The glaucoma follow-up unit operated satisfactorily and might serve as a model for shared care strategies elsewhere.

A checklist for patient safety rounds at the care pathway level.

OBJECTIVE: To define a checklist that can be used to assess the performance of a department and evaluate the implementation of quality management (QM) activities across departments or pathways in acute care hospitals. DESIGN: We developed and tested a checklist for the assessment of QM activities at department level in a cross-sectional study using on-site visits by trained external auditors. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 292 hospital departments of 74 acute care hospitals across seven European countries. In every hospital, four departments for the conditions: acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, hip fracture and deliveries participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four measures of QM activities were evaluated at care pathway level focusing on specialized expertise and responsibility (SER), evidence-based organization of pathways (EBOP), patient safety strategies and clinical review (CR). RESULTS: Participating departments attained mean values on the various scales between 1.2 and 3.7. The theoretical range was 0-4. Three of the four QM measures are identical for the four conditions, whereas one scale (EBOP) has condition-specific items. Correlations showed that every factor was related, but also distinct, and added to the overall picture of QM at pathway level. CONCLUSION: The newly developed checklist can be used across various types of departments and pathways in acute care hospitals like AMI, deliveries, stroke and hip fracture. The anticipated users of the checklist are internal (e.g. peers within the hospital and hospital executive board) and external auditors (e.g. healthcare inspectorate, professional or patient organizations).

Influences of definition ambiguity on hospital performance indicator scores: examples from The Netherlands.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Reliable and unambiguously defined performance indicators are fundamental to objective and comparable measurements of hospitals' quality of care. In two separate case studies (intensive care and breast cancer care), we investigated if differences in definition interpretation of performance indicators affected the indicator scores. DESIGN: Information about possible definition interpretations was obtained by a short telephone survey and a Web survey. We quantified the interpretation differences using a patient-level dataset from a national clinical registry (Case I) and a hospital's local database (Case II). In Case II, there was additional textual information available about the patients' status, which was reviewed to get more insight into the origin of the differences. PARTICIPANTS: For Case I, we investigated 15 596 admissions of 33 intensive care units in 2009. Case II consisted of 144 admitted patients with a breast tumour surgically treated in one hospital in 2009. RESULTS: In both cases, hospitals reported different interpretations of the indicators, which lead to significant differences in the indicator values. Case II revealed that these differences could be explained by patient-related factors such as severe comorbidity and patients' individual preference in surgery date. CONCLUSIONS: With this article, we hope to increase the awareness on pitfalls regarding the indicator definitions and the quality of the underlying data. To enable objective and comparable measurements of hospitals' quality of care, organizations that request performance information should formalize the indicators they use, including standardization of all data elements of which the indicator is composed (procedures, diagnoses).

Influences of hospital information systems, indicator data collection and computation on reported Dutch hospital performance indicator scores.

BACKGROUND: For health care performance indicators (PIs) to be reliable, data underlying the PIs are required to be complete, accurate, consistent and reproducible. Given the lack of regulation of the data-systems used in the Netherlands, and the self-report based indicator scores, one would expect heterogeneity with respect to the data collection and the ways indicators are computed. This might affect the reliability and plausibility of the nationally reported scores. METHODS: We aimed to investigate the extent to which local hospital data collection and indicator computation strategies differ and how this affects the plausibility of self-reported indicator scores, using survey results of 42 hospitals and data of the Dutch national quality database. RESULTS: The data collection and indicator computation strategies of the hospitals were substantially heterogenic. Moreover, the Hip and Knee replacement PI scores can be regarded as largely implausible, which was, to a great extent, related to a limited (computerized) data registry. In contrast, Breast Cancer PI scores were more plausible, despite the incomplete data registry and limited data access. This might be explained by the role of the regional cancer centers that collect most of the indicator data for the national cancer registry, in a standardized manner. Hospitals can use cancer registry indicator scores to report to the government, instead of their own locally collected indicator scores. CONCLUSIONS: Indicator developers, users and the scientific field need to focus more on the underlying (heterogenic) ways of data collection and conditional data infrastructures. Countries that have a liberal software market and are aiming to implement a self-report based performance indicator system to obtain health care transparency, should secure the accuracy and precision of the heath care data from which the PIs are calculated. Moreover, ongoing research and development of PIs and profound insight in the clinical practice of data registration is warranted.

Associations between technical quality of diabetes care and patient experience.

AIMS: It has long been held that high-quality care has both technical and interpersonal aspects. The nature and strength of any association between both aspects remain poorly explored. This study investigated the associations between diabetes patients' reports of receiving recommended care (as measures of technical quality) and their experience and ratings (as measures of interpersonal care). METHODS: Using data from a cross section of 3096 patients with diabetes nested within 24 diabetes-care-networks, we conducted multilevel regression analysis of the relationships between nine indicators of receiving care recommended in practice guidelines and: six scales of patient experience and global ratings of general practitioner, nurses, and overall diabetes care. RESULTS: On average, reporting having received recommended care was associated with reporting better patient experience and ratings. The extent and frequencies of these associations varied across the different care processes. Receiving foot examination, physical activity advice, smoking status check, eye examination, and HbA1c testing, but not nutritional advice, urine, cholesterol or blood pressure checks, were statistically associated with better patient experience and global ratings. Those who received HbA1c testing rated their overall care 1.002 points higher (95% confidence interval: 0.726-1.278) on a scale of 0-10 than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Higher self-reported technical quality of care in diabetes appears to be frequently but not always associated with better experiences and ratings. It is possible that the former leads to the latter and/or that both share a common cause within providers. Both care aspects do not seem interchangeable during performance assessment.

A systematic approach for uptake of evidence on sex-specific issues in guidelines--a pilot study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Increasing evidence indicates that sex-specific issues may have impact on prevention, diagnosis, or treatment. These issues are not systematically considered during the development of Dutch clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this study is to identify how members of guideline development groups discuss sex-specific evidence, and whether and how the outcomes of these discussions are reflected in the guideline. METHODS: Six guideline development committees (GDCs) were studied. Each committee was supported by a staff member from the guideline organization who was trained and received feedback to facilitate uptake of evidence on sex differences in the process of guideline development. Non-participant observation and transcription of audio recordings from 22 GDC meetings were performed. Content analysis of meeting transcripts and guidelines were studied to analyse characteristics of discussion episodes on sex-specific research data-based issues (subject matter, initiator and group approach towards the topic and themes) and whether or not conclusions on evidence were reflected in the final guideline text. RESULTS: Of the 87 identified discussion episodes, 68 dealt with sex-specific research evidence potentially relevant to guidelines. Respectively 51%, 28% and 21% of the latter episodes were initiated by committee members, staff members and chairpersons. Group approaches towards the subject matter were generally positive. Data from 60% of those episodes were reflected in the final guideline text. Sex-specific data on reproductive issues were more often discussed and reflected in guideline texts than data on other health issues. Discussion episodes on sex-specific evidence initiated by chairpersons were most often reflected in the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that GDCs regularly focused on sex-specific issues. The participation of a trained staff member contributed to this.