Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes toAssess Healthcare Quality: Toward Better Measurement of Patient-Centered Care in Cardiovascular Disease.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are elicited directly from patients so they can describe their overall health status, including their symptoms, function, and quality of life. While commonly used as end points in clinical trials, PROs can play an important role in routine clinical care, population health management, and as a means for quantifying the quality of patient care. In this review, we propose that PROs be used to improve patient-centered care in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases given their importance to patients and society and their ability to improve doctor- provider communication. Furthermore, given the current variability in patients' health status across different clinics and the fact that PROs can be improved by titrating therapy, we contend that PROs have a key opportunity to serve as measures of healthcare quality.

Vascular Surgery Practice Guidelines during COVID-19 Pandemic in a Setting of High Work Volume Against Limited Resources: Perspective of a Developing Country.

BACKGROUND: The situation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Indian subcontinent is worsening. In Bangladesh, rate of new infection has been on the rise despite limited testing facility. Constraint of resources in the health care sector makes the fight against COVID-19 more challenging for a developing country like Bangladesh. Vascular surgeons find themselves in a precarious situation while delivering professional services during this crisis. With the limited number of dedicated vascular surgeons in Bangladesh, it is important to safeguard these professionals without compromising emergency vascular care services in the long term. To this end, we at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka, have developed a working guideline for our vascular surgeons to follow during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guideline takes into account high vascular work volume against limited resources in the country. METHODS: A total of 307 emergency vascular patients were dealt with in the first 4 COVID-19 months (March through June 2020) according to the working guideline, and the results were compared with the 4 pre-COVID-19 months. Vascular trauma, dialysis access complications, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia formed the main bulk of the patient population. Vascular health care workers were regularly screened for COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There was a 38% decrease in the number of patients in the COVID-19 period. Treatment outcome in COVID-19 months were comparable with that in the pre-COVID-19 months except that limb loss in the chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients was higher. COVID-19 infection among the vascular health care professionals was low. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgery practice guidelines customized for the high work volume and limited resources of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka were effective in delivering emergency care during COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring safety of the caregivers. Despite the fact that similar guidelines exist in different parts of the world, we believe that the present one is still relevant on the premises of a deepening COVID-19 crisis in a developing country like Bangladesh.

Advancing the Culture of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement.

The American health care system has many great successes, but there continue to be opportunities for improving quality, access, and cost. The fee-for-service health care paradigm is shifting toward value-based care and will require accountability around quality assurance and cost reduction. As a result, many health care entities are rallying health care providers, administrators, regulators, and patients around a national imperative to create a culture of safety and develop systems of care to improve health care quality. However, the culture of patient safety and quality requires rigorous assessment of outcomes, and while numerous data collection and decision support tools are available to assist in quality assessment and performance improvement, the public reporting of this data can be confusing to patients and physicians alike and result in unintended negative consequences. This review explores the aims of health care reform, the national efforts to create a culture of quality and safety, the principles of quality improvement, and how these principles can be applied to patient care and medical practice.

Paying for Performance Improvement in Quality and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Care: Challenges and Prospects.

Over the past two decades, Medicare and other payers have been looking at ways to base payment for cardiovascular care on the quality and outcomes of care delivered. Public reporting of hospital performance on a series of quality measures began in 2004 with basic processes of care such as aspirin use and influenza vaccination, and it expanded in later years to include outcomes such as mortality and readmission rates. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Medicare and other payers moved forward with pay-for-performance programs, more commonly referred to as value-based purchasing (VBP) programs. These programs are largely based on an underlying fee-for-service payment infrastructure and give hospitals and clinicians bonuses or penalties based on their performance. Another new payment mechanism, called alternative payment models (APMs), aims to move towards episode-based or global payments to improve quality and efficiency. The two most relevant APMs for cardiovascular care include Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments. Both VBP programs and APMs have challenges related to program efficacy, accuracy, and equity. In fact, despite over a decade of progress in measuring and incentivizing high-quality care delivery within cardiology, major limitations remain. Many of the programs have had little benefit in terms of clinical outcomes yet have led to marked administrative burden for participants. However, there are several encouraging prospects to aid the successful implementation of value-based high-quality cardiovascular care, such as more sophisticated data science to improve risk adjustment and flexible electronic health records to decrease administrative burden. Furthermore, payment models designed specifically for cardiovascular care could incentivize innovative care delivery models that could improve quality and outcomes for patients. This review provides an overview of current efforts, largely at the federal level, to pay for high-quality cardiovascular care and discusses the challenges and prospects related to doing so.

Association Between Hospital Accreditation and Outcomes: The Analysis of Inhospital Mortality From the National Claims Data of the Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: In Thailand, hospital accreditation (HA) is widely recognized as one of the system tools to promote effective operation of universal health coverage. This nationwide study aims to examine the relationship between accredited statuses of the provincial hospitals and their mortality outcomes. METHOD: A 5-year retrospective analysis of the Universal Coverage Scheme's claim dataset was conducted, using 1 297 869 inpatient discharges from 76 provincial hospital networks under the Ministry of Public Health. Mortality outcomes of 3 major acute care conditions, including acute myocardial infarction, acute stroke, and sepsis, were selected. RESULTS: Using generalized estimating equations to adjust for area-based control variables, hospital networks with HA-accredited provincial hospitals showed significant associations with lower standardized mortality ratios of acute stroke and sepsis. CONCLUSION: Our findings added supportive evidence that HA, as an organizational and health system management tool, could help promote hospital quality and safety in a developing country, leading to better outcomes.

Association of Outpatient Practice-Level Socioeconomic Disadvantage With Quality of Care and Outcomes Among Older Adults With Coronary Artery Disease: Implications for Value-Based Payment.

BACKGROUND: Medicare patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been a significant focus of value-based payment programs for outpatient practices. Physicians and policymakers, however, have voiced concern that value-based payment programs may penalize practices that serve vulnerable populations. This study evaluated whether outpatient practices that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have worse CAD outcomes, and if this reflects the delivery of lower-quality care or rather, patient and community factors beyond the care provided by physician practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years with CAD at outpatient practices participating in the the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015. Outpatient practices were stratified into quintiles by the proportion of most disadvantaged patients-defined by an area deprivation score in the highest 20% nationally-served at each practice site. Prescription of guideline recommended therapies for CAD as well as clinical outcomes (emergency department presentation for chest pain, hospital admission for unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 30-day readmission after AMI, and 30-day mortality after AMI) were evaluated by practice-level socioeconomic disadvantage with hierarchical logistic regression models, using practices serving the fewest socioeconomically disadvantaged patients as a reference. The study included 453 783 Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years of age with CAD (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.7] years; 39.7% female) cared for at 271 outpatient practices. At practices serving the highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (group 5), compared with practices serving the lowest proportion (group 1), there was no significant difference in the likelihood of prescription of antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]), ß-blocker therapy if prior myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.69-1.35]), ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.19]), statin therapy (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]), or cardiac rehabilitation (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]). Patients cared for at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (group 5) were more likely to be admitted for unstable angina (adjusted OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.04-2.05]). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency department presentation for chest pain or hospital admission for AMI between practices. Thirty day mortality rates after AMI were higher among patients at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02-1.68]), but 30-day readmission rates did not differ. All associations were attenuated after additional adjustment for patient-level area deprivation index. CONCLUSIONS: Physician outpatient practices that serve the most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with CAD perform worse on some clinical outcomes, despite providing similar guideline-recommended care as other practices, and consequently could fare poorly under value-based payment programs. Social factors beyond care provided by outpatient practices may partly explain worse outcomes. Policymakers should consider accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in value-based payment programs initiatives that target outpatient practices.

Assessment of the Accuracy and Reliability of Vascular Surgery Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Health care quality metrics are crucial to medical institutions, payers, and patients. Obtaining current and reliable quality data is challenging, as publicly reported databases lag by several years. Vizient Clinical Data Base (previously University Health Consortium) is utilized by over 5,000 academic and community medical centers to benchmark health care metrics with results based on predetermined Vizient service lines. We sought to assess the accuracy and reliability of vascular surgery service line metrics, as determined by Vizient. METHODS: Vizient utilizes encounter data submitted by participating medical centers and generates a diverse array of health care metrics ranging from mortality to costs. All inpatient cases captured by Vizient under the vascular surgery service line were identified at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (fiscal year 2016). Each case within the service line was reviewed and categorized as "vascular" or "nonvascular" based on care provided by UMass vascular surgery faculty: vascular = vascular surgery was integral part of care, nonvascular = vascular surgery had minimal or no involvement. Statistical analysis comparing length of stay (LOS), cost, readmission, mortality, and complication rates between vascular and nonvascular cohorts was performed. All inpatient cases discharged by a vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier number were also reviewed and categorized according to Vizient service lines. RESULTS: Vizient's vascular surgery service line identified 696 cases, of which 556 (80%) were vascular and 140 (20%) were nonvascular. When comparing these 2 cohorts, vascular cases had a significantly lower LOS (3.4 vs. 8.7 days; P < 0.0001), cost ($8,535 vs. $16,498; P < 0.0001), and complication rate (6.5% vs. 18%; P < 0.0001) than nonvascular. Mortality was also lower (1.6% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.01), but after risk-adjustment, this difference was not significant. When discharging vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier was used to identify vascular surgery cases, only 69% of these cases were placed within the vascular surgery service line. CONCLUSIONS: Health care quality metrics play an important role for all stakeholders but obtaining accurate and reliable data to implement improvements is challenging. In this single institution experience, inpatient cases that were not under the direction or care of a vascular surgeon resulted in significantly negative impacts on LOS, cost, complication rate, and mortality to the vascular surgery service line, as defined by a national clinical database. Therefore, clinicians must understand the data abstracting and reporting process before implementing effective strategic plans.

Vascular Quality Initiative assessment of compliance with Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines on the care of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Professional societies publish clinical practice guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations to improve care and to reduce practice variation. However, the degree of compliance with the guidelines and its impact on outcomes have not been well defined. This study used the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) registries to determine current compliance with and impact of recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) AAA guidelines. METHODS: Recommendations from the SVS AAA guidelines were reviewed and assessed as to whether they could be evaluated with current VQI data sets. The degree of compliance with these individual recommendations was calculated by center and correlated with clinical outcomes. Data were analyzed by univariate analysis and mixed effects multivariable logistic regression. Statistical significance was measured at P < .05. RESULTS: Of the 111 SVS recommendations, 10 could be evaluated using VQI registries. The mean center-specific compliance rate ranged from 40% (smoking cessation 2 weeks before open AAA [OAAA] repair) to 99% (preservation of flow to one internal iliac artery during endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]). Some recommendations were associated with improved outcomes (eg, cell salvage for OAAA repair and antibiotic prophylaxis), whereas others were not (eg, EVAR at a center with >10 cases per year or door-to-intervention time <90 minutes for ruptured AAA). With multivariable analysis, compliance with preservation of flow to the internal iliac artery decreased major adverse cardiac events in EVAR and marginally decreased in-hospital and 1-year mortality in OAAA repair. Antibiotic administration decreased surgical site infection, major adverse cardiac events, and in-hospital mortality and marginally decreased respiratory complications and 1-year mortality in EVAR. Cell salvage for OAAA repair decreased 1-year mortality. Tobacco cessation before EVAR or OAAA repair decreased respiratory complications and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The VQI registry is a valuable tool that can be used to measure compliance with SVS AAA guidelines. Compliance with recommendations was associated with improved outcomes and should be encouraged for providers. Participation in the VQI registry provides an objective assessment of performance and compliance with guidelines. VQI provider and center reports may be used as a focus for quality improvement efforts.

Quality assessment of vascular access procedures for hemodialysis: A position paper of the Vascular Access Society based on the analysis of existing guidelines.

Quality assessment in vascular access procedures for hemodialysis is not clearly defined. The aim of this article is to compare various guidelines regarding recommendation on quality control in angioaccess surgery. The overall population of end-stage renal disease patients and patients in need for hemodialysis treatment is growing every year. Chronic intermittent hemodialysis is still the main therapy. The formation of a functional angioaccess is the cornerstone in the management of those patients. Native (autologous) arteriovenous fistula is the best vascular access available. A relatively high percentage of primary failure and fistula abandonment increases the need for quality control in this field of surgery. There are very few recommendations of quality assessment on creation of a vascular access for hemodialysis in the searched guidelines. Some guidelines recommend the proportion of native arteriovenous fistula in incident and prevalent patients as well as the maximum tolerable percentage of central venous catheters and complications. According to some guidelines, surgeon's experience and expertise have a considerable influence on outcomes. There are no specific recommendations regarding surgeon's specialty, grade, level of skills, and experience. In conclusion, there is a weak recommendation in the guidelines on quality control in vascular access surgery. Quality assessment criteria should be defined in this field of surgery. According to these criteria, patients and nephrologists could choose the best vascular access center or surgeon. Centers with best results should be referral centers, and centers with poorer results should implement quality improvement programs.

Assessment of repeat target lesion percutaneous coronary intervention as a quality measure for public reporting and general quality assessment for PCIs.

BACKGROUND: Target lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (TLPCI) within 1 year of PCI has been proposed by critics of public reporting of short-term mortality as an alternative measure for PCI reporting. METHODS: New York's PCI registry was used to identify 1-year repeat TLPCI and 1-year repeat TLPCI/mortality for patients discharged between December 1, 2013 and November 30, 2014. Significant independent predictors of the outcomes were identified. Hospital and cardiologist risk-adjusted outcomes were calculated, and outlier status and correlations of risk-adjusted rates were examined for the three outcomes. RESULTS: The adverse outcome rates were 1.30, 4.21, and 8.97% for in-hospital/30-day mortality, 1-year repeat TLPCI, and 1-year repeat TLPCI/mortality. There were many commonalities but also many differences in significant predictors of the outcomes. Hospital and cardiologist risk-adjusted 1-year repeat TLPCI rates and repeat TLPCI/mortality rates were poorly correlated with risk-adjusted in-hospital/30-day mortality rates (eg, Spearman R = -.16 [p = .23] and .27 [p = .04], respectively, for hospital 1-year repeat TLPCI vs. in-hospital/30-day mortality). Many more providers were found to have significantly higher and lower rates for repeat TLPCI than for short-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital and cardiologist quality assessments are very different for TLPCI and repeat TLPCI/mortality than they are for short-term mortality. Repeat TLPCI/mortality rates are highly correlated with repeat TLPCI rates, but outlier providers differ. More study of repeat TLPCI and all the patient, cardiologist, and hospital factors associated with it may be required before using it as a supplement to, or in lieu of, short-term mortality in public reporting of PCI outcomes.

Outcome measures for oncology alternative payment models: practical considerations and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to synthesize existing scholarship on quality measures in oncology, with a specific focus on outcome-based quality measures, which are often underutilized. We also present a set of "core outcome measures" that may be considered in future oncology alternative payment models (APMs). STUDY DESIGN: Our research consists of a focused literature review, content analysis, and quality measure synthesis and categorization. METHODS: We conducted a focused literature review to generate key evidence on quality measures in oncology. We studied 7 oncology quality assessment frameworks, encompassing 142 quality metrics, and synthesized recommendations using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation APM toolkit, focusing on outcome measures. RESULTS: We present 34 outcome-based oncology quality measures for consideration, which are classified into 5 domains: clinical care (eg, hospital and emergency department visits, treatment effectiveness, mortality), safety (eg, infections, hospital adverse events), care coordination (for hospital and hospice care), patient and caregiver experience, and population health and prevention. Both general and indication-specific outcome measures should be considered in oncology APMs, as appropriate. Utilizing outcome-based measures will require addressing multiple challenges, ranging from risk adjustment to data quality assurance. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology care will benefit from a more rigorous approach to quality assessment. The success of oncology APMs will require a robust set of quality measures that are relevant to patients, providers, and payers.

Hospital-Based Quality Improvement Interventions for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement initiatives have been developed to improve acute coronary syndrome care largely in high-income country settings. We sought to synthesize the effect size and quality of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies for hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions on clinical outcomes and process of care measures for their potential implementation in low- and middle-income country settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a bibliometric search of databases and trial registers and a hand search in 2016 and performed an updated search in May 2018 and May 2019. We performed data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence assessments in duplicate. We assessed differences in outcomes by study design comparing RCTs to nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies and by country income status. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to substantial, unexplained heterogeneity among the included studies, and thus, we present a qualitative synthesis. We screened 5858 records and included 32 studies (14 RCTs [n=109 763] and 18 nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies [n=54-423]). In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.1% to 4.8% in the intervention groups versus 3.3% to 5.1% in the control groups in 5 RCTs (n=55 942). Five RCTs (n=64 313) reported 3.0% to 31.0% higher rates of reperfusion for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the intervention groups. The effect sizes for in-hospital and discharge medical therapies in a majority of RCTs were 3.0% to 10.0% higher in the intervention groups. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality evaluated by 4 RCTs (n=42 384), which reported 2.5% to 15.0% versus 5.9% to 22% 30-day mortality rates in the intervention versus control groups. In contrast, nonrandomized quasi-experimental studies reported larger effect sizes compared to RCTs. There were no significant consistent differences in outcomes between high-income and middle-income countries. Low-income countries were not represented in any of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based acute coronary syndrome quality improvement interventions have a modest effect on process of care measures but not on clinical outcomes with expected differences by study design. Although quality improvement programs have an ongoing and important role for acute coronary syndrome quality of care in high-income country settings, further research will help to identify key components for contextualizing and implementing such interventions to new settings to achieve their desired effects. Systematic Review Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Unique identifier: CRD42016047604.

Validating Reports of Chronic Conditions in the Medicare CAHPS Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey includes items about chronic conditions, health history, and self-rated health. Questions remain about the concordance between patient reports and administrative sources on questions related to health history. OBJECTIVE: To validate CAHPS measures of chronic conditions against claims-based measures from the Medicare Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW). METHODS: We linked CAHPS responses from 301,050 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2010-2012 with summaries of their claims in the CCW and identified nearest equivalent measures of conditions across sources. We calculated sensitivities and specificities for conditions and estimated regression models to assess the effects of patient characteristics on the sensitivity. RESULTS: The sensitivity of CAHPS measures differed across conditions, ranging from 0.513 for history of stroke to 0.773 for history of cancer. Sensitivity was generally lower for older beneficiaries, those reporting good self-rated health, and those with fair or poor mental health. Specificity was 0.904 or greater for all conditions, up to 0.961 for stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Despite difference in timeframes and definitions of conditions, the measured sensitivities demonstrated reasonable validity. Variation in sensitivity is consistent with covariates that either directly measure health severity within a diagnosis or can be construed as a proxy for severity of illness.

Prenatal evaluation in primary care in Northeast Brazil: factors associated with its adequacy.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize prenatal care and verify possible factors associated with its adequacy. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study based on interviews with health care professionals and consultations on official documents of women attending prenatal of the primary health care in the city of João Pessoa, capital of Paraíba, in the Northeast region of Brazil. Prenatal care was evaluated by an index with criteria referring to aspects of structure, process and outcome, denominated IPR/Prenatal. The multivariate logistic regression method revealed that demographic, socioeconomic, reproductive and maternal morbidity variables were possible determinants for prenatal adequacy. RESULTS: The survey involved 130 services and 1,625 primary health care patients. Prenatal care was adequate in approximately 23% of the cases. Low prevalence of referral to maternity, educational strategies and examinations were observed. The analysis showed that non-adolescent women (OR = 1,390), with a longer period of schooling (OR = 1.750), higher per capita income (OR = 1,870) and primiparous women (OR = 1,230) were more likely to have an adequate prenatal. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal care, when evaluated by broader criteria, showed a low percentage of adequacy. Strategies should be developed to ensure the referral to the maternity where the birth will take place and health education activities and examinations to provide adequate prenatal care in the municipality under study. In addition, factors associated with adequacy must be considered by managers and health professionals.

Quality and Value of Health Care in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study.

Background The attitudes of Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) cardiovascular clinicians toward the VA 's quality-of-care processes, clinical outcomes measures, and healthcare value are not well understood. Methods and Results Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with cardiovascular healthcare providers (n=31) at VA hospitals that were previously identified as high or low performers in terms of healthcare value. The interviews focused on VA providers' experiences with measures of processes, outcomes, and value (ie, costs relative to outcomes) of cardiovascular care. Most providers were aware of process-of-care measurements, received regular feedback generated from those data, and used that feedback to change their practices. Fewer respondents reported clinical outcomes measures influencing their practice, and virtually no participants used value data to inform their practice, although several described administrative barriers limiting high-cost care. Providers also expressed general enthusiasm for the VA 's quality measurement/improvement efforts, with relatively few criticisms about the workload or opportunity costs inherent in clinical performance data collection. There were no material differences in the responses of employees of low-performing versus high-performing VA medical centers. Conclusions Regardless of their medical center's healthcare value performance, most VA cardiovascular providers used feedback from process-of-care data to inform their practice. However, clinical outcomes data were used more rarely, and value-of-care data were almost never used. The limited use of outcomes data to inform healthcare practice raises concern that healthcare outcomes may have insufficient influence, whereas the lack of value data influencing cardiovascular care practices may perpetuate inefficiencies in resource use.

Two-Year Outcomes of Early Cannulation Arteriovenous Grafts for End-Stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Almost 80% of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) initiate dialysis via a central venous catheter (CVC). CVCs are associated with multiple complications and a high cost of care. The purpose of our project is to determine the impact of early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ECAVGs) on quality of care and costs. METHODS: The dialysis access modality, complications, secondary interventions, hospital outcomes, and detailed costs were tracked for 397 sequential patients who underwent access creation between July 2014 and October 2018. Complications were grouped into deep vein thrombosis, line infections, sepsis, pneumothorax, and other. Secondary interventions included angioplasty, angioplasty and stent grafting, thrombectomy, surgical revision, and explantation. Hospital outcomes included length of stay, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission, and discharge disposition. Costs included supplies, medications, laboratory tests, labor, and other direct costs. All variables were measured at the time of the index procedure, 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, 270 days, 1 year, 18 months, and 2 years. RESULTS: There were 131 patients who underwent arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and 266 who received ECAVG for dialysis access. The total cost of care per patient was $17,523 for AVF and $5,894 for ECAVG at 1 year (P < 0.01). Primary-assisted patency for AVF was 49.3% versus 81.4% for ECAVG (P = 0.027), and secondary-assisted patency for AVF was 63.8% versus 85.4% for ECAVG at 1 year (P = 0.011). There was a survival advantage for ECAVGs at 1 year (78.6% for AVF vs 85.0% for ECAVG, P = 0.034). Patients who received ECAVG had fewer CVC days (2.3% vs 19.1% for AVF, P < 0.001), fewer complications (1.6% vs. 21.5% for AVF, P < 0.001), and fewer secondary interventions (17.0% vs 52.5% for AVF, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study on patients with ESRD to report detailed outcomes and cost analysis as it relates to AVF versus ECAVG. ECAVGs have an advantage over AVFs due to lower overall cost and better clinical outcomes at 1 year. Implementation of an urgent start dialysis access program centered around ECAVGs may help achieve the national goal of better health care at a lower cost for patients with ESRD.

Use of Internal Performance Measurement to Guide Improvement Within Medical Groups.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting of provider performance currently encompasses a range of measures of quality, cost, and patient experience of care. However, little is known about how medical groups use measures for performance improvement. This information could help medical groups undertake internal measurement while helping payers, policy makers, and measurement experts develop more useful publicly reported measures and quality improvement strategies. METHODS: An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted of ambulatory care medical groups across the United States that currently gather their own performance data. RESULTS: Eighty-three interviews were conducted with 91 individuals representing 37 medical groups. Findings were distilled into three major themes: (1) measures used internally, (2) strategies for using internal measurement for performance improvement, and (3) other uses of internal measurement. Medical groups used both clinical and business process measures, including measures from external measure sets and internally derived measures. Strategies for using internal measurement for quality improvement included taking a gradual, iterative approach and setting clear goals with high priority, finding workable approaches to data sharing, and fostering engagement by focusing on actionable measures. Measurement was also used to check accuracy of external performance reports, clarify and manage conflicting external measurement requirements, and prepare for anticipated external measurement requirements. Respondents in most groups did not report a need to assess costs of internal measurement or the capacity to do so. CONCLUSION: Despite challenges and barriers, respondents found great value in conducting internal measurement. Their experiences may provide valuable lessons and knowledge for medical group leaders in earlier stages of establishing internal measurement programs.

Continuous Monitoring of Transplant Center Performance: Different Options for Different Goals.

BACKGROUND: In France, the need for continuous monitoring of transplant center performance has recently become apparent. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) monitoring of transplantation is already been used to monitor transplant outcomes in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Because CUSUM monitoring can be applied by different methods, the objective was to assess and compare the performance of different CUSUM methods for detecting higher than expected (ie, excessive) graft failure rates. METHODS: Data come from the French transplant registry. Lung and kidney transplants in 2011-2013 constituted the control cohort, and those in 2014-2016 the observed cohort. The performance of CUSUM monitoring, according to center type and predefined control limits, was measured by simulation. The outcome monitored was 3-month graft failure. RESULTS: In a low-volume center with a low failure rate, 3 different types of control limits produced successful detection rates of excessive graft failures of 15%, 62%, and 73% and false alarm rates of 5%, 40%, and 52%, with 3, 1, and 1 excess failures necessary before a signal occurred. In a high-volume center with a high failure rate, successful detection rates were 83%, 93%, and 100% and false alarm rates were 5%, 16%, and 69%, with 6, 13, and 17 excess failures necessary before a signal occurred. CONCLUSIONS: CUSUM performances vary greatly depending on the type of control limit used. A new control limit set to maximize specificity and sensitivity of detection is an appropriate alternative to those commonly used. Continued attention is necessary for centers with characteristics making it difficult to obtain adequate sensitivity or sufficiently prompt response.