Vers une nouvelle certification des établissements de santé pour 2020.

TOWARDS A NEW CERTIFICATION OF HEALTHCARE FACILITIES FOR 2020.: The accreditation process, now a certification process for healthcare facilities, has constantly evolved since 1999 in order to improve the quality and safety of care provided to patients. In order to meet demographic, epidemiological and social challenges, it needs to be revised again. The French National Health Authority board has fixed three main objectives for the 2020 version: to medicalise certification, simplify it and adapt it to hospital groups in the public and private sector.

Mandatory national quality improvement systems using indicators: An initial assessment in Europe and Israel.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement systems (QIS) that are based on empirical performance assessment have increasingly been implemented as a mandatory part of health systems across countries. This study aims to describe national mandatory QIS in Europe in 2014. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant national agencies for national mandatory QIS in Europe were identified through online searches and key informants. A questionnaire was compiled during a workshop with these agencies and filled out by representatives from these particular agencies. RESULTS: Agencies in charge of national mandatory QIS in seven countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Scotland, Sweden and Switzerland) were included in the study. An analysis of QIS revealed similarities, such as the use of routine data for performance assessment and the aim to hold healthcare providers accountable. Differences relate to the different forms of feedback systems and improvement mechanisms used. Trends include the development towards greater implementation of QIS within health systems, the inclusion of the patient's perspective in performance assessment, and experiments with pay for performance-related measures. CONCLUSION: On a country level, for health systems striving for newly implementing QIS it is recommended to start where routine data is available, add qualitative methodologies once the QIS is getting more complex, report performance data back to service providers and be patient centred. On the inter-country level exchange of information between agencies commissioned with implementing national QIS is very much needed for.

Hospital comparisons based on mortality: revisiting the choice of postadmission timeframe and evaluating the contribution of cause-of-death data, France, 2009.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital mortality is widely used to judge the quality of hospital care, but is biased by discharge patterns. Fixed-timeframe indicators have thus been recommended. However, the 30-day postadmission indicator may underestimate hospital-wide mortality, as patients dying in hospital >30 days after admission are considered as survivors. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most relevant timeframes and to assess the contribution of cause-of-death data. METHODS: The 2009 French hospital discharge database was linked to vital status records and to the causes of death register for 11.5 million hospital stays by beneficiaries of French general health insurance. Correlations and agreements between the 30-day hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) and the in-hospital, 60-, 90-, 180-, and 365-day postadmission HSMRs were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 7.8%, 1.5%, and 0.5% of patients who died during their hospital stay were considered as survivors by the 30-, 60-, and 90-day HSMRs, respectively. The 30-day HSMR correlated strongly with the 60-day HSMR (Pearson coefficient=0.92), and their agreement on outlier status was excellent (κ coefficient=0.80). The association remained substantial at 90 days, but weakened at 180 days and even more so at 365 days. Regardless of the timeframe, exclusion of deaths likely due to independent causes barely modified the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study shows that 60- and 90-day HSMRs encompass in-hospital deaths better than the 30-day HSMR, while capturing the same interhospital variations. They should thus be preferred. The contribution of cause-of-death data to hospital-wide indicators seems negligible.

Hospital case volume and appropriate prescriptions at hospital discharge after acute myocardial infarction: a nationwide assessment.

BACKGROUND: In acute myocardial infarction, the relationship between volume and quality indicators (QIs) is poorly documented. Through a nationwide assessment of QIs at discharge repeated for 3 years, we aimed to quantify the relationship between volume and QIs in survivors after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Almost all healthcare centers in France participated. Medical records were randomly selected. Data collection was performed by an independent group. QIs for acute myocardial infarction were defined by an expert consensus group as appropriate prescription at discharge of aspirin, clopidogrel, ß-blocker, statin, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <0.40. A composite QI was calculated through the use of the all-or-none method. Volume was classified into 7 categories based on the number of admissions for acute myocardial infarctions in 2008 (centers with <10 acute myocardial infarctions were excluded). Odds ratios adjusted for age and sex with 95% confidence interval for volume categories were calculated by use of logistic regression for each QI. Temporal changes were tested in centers that participated in all 3 campaigns. A total of 46 390 records were examined: 18 159 in 2008, 12 837 in 2009, and 15 394 in 2010. Two hundred ninety-one centers were eligible for the temporal analysis. There was a significant increase between 2008 and 2009 in appropriate prescription of antiplatelet agents, ß-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, statins at discharge, and the composite indicator. Similarly, a significant increase was observed between 2009 and 2010 in appropriate prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and ß-blockers and in the composite QI. Compared with a volume of >300, a significantly lower rate of all QIs was observed in centers with the lowest volume. Odds ratios progressively decreased with increasing volume. Despite a significant increase in the composite QI over the 3 years, a significant relationship persisted between volume and quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of QIs at discharge demonstrates the existence of a relationship between volume and appropriate prescriptions at discharge. Centers with the highest volume perform better on quality measures than centers with lower volumes. Temporal analysis over 3 consecutive years confirms this relationship and shows that it persists despite improvement in QIs between 2008 and 2010.