The role of funded partnerships in working towards decreasing COVID-19 vaccination disparities, United States, March 2021-December 2022.

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists among stakeholders about how to best measure care coordination. We aimed to review and characterize existing measures of care coordination processes and identify areas of high and low density to guide future measure development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of measures published in MEDLINE through April 2012 and identified from additional key sources and informants. We characterized included measures with respect to the aspects of coordination measured (domain), measurement perspective (patient/family, health care professional, system representative), applicable settings and patient populations (by age and condition), and data used (survey, chart review, administrative claims). RESULTS: Among the 96 included measure instruments, most relied on survey methods (88%) and measured aspects of communication (93%), in particular the transfer of information (81%). Few measured changing coordination needs (11%). Nearly half (49%) of instruments mapped to the patient/family perspective; 29% to the system representative and 27% to the health care professionals perspective. Few instruments were applicable to settings other than primary care (58%), inpatient facilities (25%), and outpatient specialty care (22%). CONCLUSIONS: New measures are needed that evaluate changing coordination needs, coordination as perceived by health care professionals, coordination in the home health setting, and for patients at the end of life.

Stakeholder-driven principles for advancing equity through shared measurement.

OBJECTIVE: To advance equity by developing stakeholder-driven principles of shared measurement, which is using a common set of measurable goals that reflect shared priorities across communities and systems, such as health care, public health, and human and social services. DATA SOURCES: From October 2019 to July 2021, we collected primary data from leaders in cross-systems alignment, measurement, and community engagement-including community members and community-based organization leaders-across the United States. STUDY DESIGN: In partnership with equity and community engagement experts, we conducted a mixed-methods study that included multiple formative research activities and culminated in a six-week, stakeholder-engaged modified-Delphi process. DATA COLLECTION: Formative data collection occurred through an environmental scan, interviews, focus groups, and an online survey. Principles were developed using a virtual modified Delphi with iterative rapid-analysis. Feedback on the final principles was collected through virtual focus groups, an online feedback form, and during virtual presentations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We developed a set of five guiding principles. Measurement that aligns systems with communities toward equitable outcomes: (1) Requires upfront investment in communities; (2) Is co-created by communities; (3) Creates accountability to communities for addressing root causes of inequities and repairing harm; (4) Focuses on a holistic and comprehensive view of communities that highlights assets and historical context; and (5) Reflects long-term efforts to build trust. Using an equity-focused process resulted in principles with broad applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders across systems and communities can use these shared measurement principles to reimagine and transform how systems create equitable health by centering the needs and priorities of the communities they serve, particularly communities that historically have been harmed the most by inequities. Intentionally centering equity across all project activities was essential to producing principles that could guide others in advancing equity.

Expanding the uses of AHRQ's prevention quality indicators: validity from the clinician perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's prevention quality indicators (PQIs) are used as a metric of area-level access to quality care. Recently, interest has expanded to using the measures at the level of payer or large physician groups, including public reporting or pay-for-performance programs. However, the validity of these expanded applications is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a novel panel process to establish face validity of the 12 PQIs at 3 denominator levels: geographic area, payer, and large physician groups; and 3 uses: quality improvement, comparative reporting, and pay for performance. Sixty-four clinician panelists were split into Delphi and Nominal Groups. We aimed to capitalize on the reliability of the Delphi method and information sharing in the Nominal group method by applying these techniques simultaneously. We examined panelists' perceived usefulness of the indicators for specific uses using median scores and agreement within and between groups. RESULTS: Panelists showed stronger support of the usefulness of chronic disease indicators at the payer and large physician group levels than for acute disease indicators. Panelists fully supported the usefulness of 2 indicators for comparative reporting (asthma, congestive heart failure) and no indicators for pay-for-performance applications. Panelists expressed serious concerns about the usefulness of all new applications of 3 indicators (angina, perforated appendix, dehydration). Panelists rated age, current comorbidities, earlier hospitalization, and socioeconomic status as the most important risk-adjustment factors. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians supported some expanded uses of the PQIs, but generally expressed reservations. Attention to denominator definitions and risk adjustment are essential for expanded use.

Hospital characteristics associated with timeliness of care in veterans with lung cancer.

RATIONALE: Timeliness is one of six important dimensions of health care quality recognized by the Institute of Medicine. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate timeliness of lung cancer care and identify institutional characteristics associated with timely care within the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. METHODS: We used data from a VA nation-wide retrospective chart review and an independent audit of VA cancer programs to examine the association between time to first treatment and potentially explanatory institutional characteristics (e.g., volume of lung cancer patients) for 2,372 veterans diagnosed with lung cancer between 1 January 2002 and 1 September 2005 at 127 VA medical centers. We developed linear mixed effects models to control for clustering of patients within hospitals and we stratified analyses by stage. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Median time to treatment varied widely between (23 to 182 d) and within facilities. Median time to treatment was 90 days in patients with stage I or II cancer and 52 days in those with more advanced disease (P < 0.0001). Factors associated with shorter times to treatment included a nonacademic setting and the existence of a specialized diagnostic clinic (in patients with limited-stage disease), performing a patient flow analysis (in patients with advanced disease), and leadership beliefs about providing timely care (in both groups). However, institutional characteristics explained less than 1% of the observed variation in treatment times. CONCLUSIONS: Time to lung cancer treatment in U.S. veterans is highly variable. The numerous institutional characteristics we examined explained relatively little of this variability, suggesting that patient, clinician, and/or unmeasured institutional characteristics may be more important determinants of timely care.

Timeliness of care in veterans with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Timeliness is an important dimension of quality of care for patients with lung cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients in whom non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) had been diagnosed between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. We used multivariable statistical methods to identify independent predictors of timely care and examined the effect of timeliness on survival. RESULTS: We identified 129 veterans with NSCLC (mean age, 67 years; 98% men; 83% white), most of whom had adenocarcinoma (51%) or squamous cell carcinoma (30%). A minority of patients (18%) presented with a solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN). The median time from the initial suspicion of cancer to treatment was 84 days (interquartile range, 38 to 153 days). Independent predictors of treatment within 84 days included hospitalization within 7 days (odds ratio [OR], 8.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9 to 23), tumor size of > 3.0 cm (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.8 to 12.4), the presence of additional chest radiographic abnormalities (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 8.5), and the presence of one or more symptoms suggesting metastasis (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 6.2). More timely care was not associated with better survival time (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.9). However, in patients with SPNs, there was a trend toward better survival time when the time to treatment was < 84 days. CONCLUSIONS: The time to treatment for patients with NSCLC was often longer than recommended. Patients with larger tumors, symptoms, and other chest radiographic abnormalities receive more timely care. In patients with malignant SPNs, survival may be better when treatment is initiated promptly.

Development and Validation of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Measures of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department (ED) Visits: The ED Prevention Quality Indicators for General Health Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate rates of potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits as indicators of community health. DATA SOURCES: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project 2008-2010 State Inpatient Databases and State Emergency Department Databases. STUDY DESIGN: Empirical analyses and structured panel reviews. METHODS: Panels of 14-17 clinicians and end users evaluated a set of ED Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs) using a Modified Delphi process. Empirical analyses included assessing variation in ED PQI rates across counties and sensitivity of those rates to county-level poverty, uninsurance, and density of primary care physicians (PCPs). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: ED PQI rates varied widely across U.S. communities. Indicator rates were significantly associated with county-level poverty, median income, Medicaid insurance, and levels of uninsurance. A few indicators were significantly associated with PCP density, with higher rates in areas with greater density. A clinical and an end-user panel separately rated the indicators as having strong face validity for most uses evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The ED PQIs have undergone initial validation as indicators of community health with potential for use in public reporting, population health improvement, and research.

Facility-level analysis of PET scanning for staging among US veterans with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: PET scanning has been shown in randomized trials to reduce the frequency of surgery without cure among patients with potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined whether more frequent use of PET scanning at the facility level improves survival among patients with NSCLC in real-world practice. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study of 622 US veterans with newly diagnosed NSCLC, we compared groups defined by the frequency of PET scan use measured at the facility level and categorized as low (<25%), medium (25%-60%), or high (>60%). RESULTS: The median age of the sample was 69 years. Ninety-eight percent were men, 36% were Hispanic or nonwhite, and 54% had moderate or severe comorbidities. At low-, medium-, and high-use facilities, PET scan was performed in 13%, 40%, and 72% of patients, respectively (P<.0001). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups, including clinical stage based on CT scanning. More frequent use of PET scanning was associated with more frequent invasive staging (P<.001) and nonsignificant improvements in downstaging (P=.13) and surgery without cure (P=.12). After a median of 352 days of follow-up, 22% of the sample was still alive, including 22% at low- and medium-use facilities and 20% at high-use facilities. After adjustment and compared with patients at low-use facilities, the hazard of death was greater for patients at high-use facilities (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) but not different for patients at medium-use facilities (adjusted HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.88-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of veterans with NSCLC, markedly greater use of PET scanning at the facility level was associated with more frequent use of invasive staging and possible improvements in downstaging and surgery without cure, but greater use of PET scanning was not associated with better survival.

Evaluating the state of quality-improvement science through evidence synthesis: insights from the closing the quality gap series.

CONTEXT: The Closing the Quality Gap series from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality summarizes evidence for eight high-priority health care topics: outcomes used in disability research, bundled payment programs, public reporting initiatives, health care disparities, palliative care, the patient-centered medical home, prevention of health care-associated infections, and medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: To distill evidence from this series and provide insight into the "state of the science" of quality improvement (QI). METHODS: We provided common guidance for topic development and qualitatively synthesized evidence from the series topic reports to identify cross-topic themes, challenges, and evidence gaps as related to QI practice and science. RESULTS: Among topics that examined effectiveness of QI interventions, we found improvement in some outcomes but not others. Implementation context and potential harms from QI activities were not widely evaluated or reported, although market factors appeared important for incentive-based QI strategies. Patient-focused and systems-focused strategies were generally more effective than clinician-focused strategies, although the latter approach improved clinician adherence to infection prevention strategies. Audit and feedback appeared better for targeting professionals and organizations, but not patients. Topic reviewers observed heterogeneity in outcomes used for QI evaluations, weaknesses in study design, and incomplete reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Synthesizing evidence across topics provided insight into the state of the QI field for practitioners and researchers. To facilitate future evidence synthesis, consensus is needed around a smaller set of outcomes for use in QI evaluations and a framework and lexicon to describe QI interventions more broadly, in alignment with needs of decision makers responsible for improving quality.

Implications of metric choice for common applications of readmission metrics.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the differential impact on hospital performance of three readmission metrics: all-cause readmission (ACR), 3M Potential Preventable Readmission (PPR), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 30-day readmission (CMS). DATA SOURCES: 2000-2009 California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Data Nonpublic file. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated 30-day readmission rates using three metrics, for three disease groups: heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia. Using each metric, we calculated the absolute change and correlation between performance; the percent of hospitals remaining in extreme deciles and level of agreement; and differences in longitudinal performance. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Average hospital rates for HF patients and the CMS metric were generally higher than for other conditions and metrics. Correlations between the ACR and CMS metrics were highest (r = 0.67-0.84). Rates calculated using the PPR and either ACR or CMS metrics were moderately correlated (r = 0.50-0.67). Between 47 and 75 percent of hospitals in an extreme decile according to one metric remained when using a different metric. Correlations among metrics were modest when measuring hospital longitudinal change. CONCLUSIONS: Different approaches to computing readmissions can produce different hospital rankings and impact pay-for-performance. Careful consideration should be placed on readmission metric choice for these applications.

Assessment of a novel hybrid Delphi and Nominal Groups technique to evaluate quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To test the implementation of a novel structured panel process in the evaluation of quality indicators. DATA SOURCE: National panel of 64 clinicians rating usefulness of indicator applications in 2008-2009. STUDY DESIGN: Hybrid panel combined Delphi Group and Nominal Group (NG) techniques to evaluate 81 indicator applications. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The Delphi Group and NG rated 56 percent of indicator applications similarly. Group assignment (Delphi versus Nominal) was not significantly associated with mean ratings, but specialty and research interests of panelists, and indicator factors such as denominator level and proposed use were. Rating distributions narrowed significantly in 20.8 percent of applications between review rounds. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid panel process facilitated information exchange and tightened rating distributions. Future assessments of this method might include a control panel.

Disparities in lung cancer staging with positron emission tomography in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in treatment exist for nonwhite and Hispanic patients with non-small cell lung cancer, but little is known about disparities in the use of staging tests or their underlying causes. METHODS: Prospective, observational cohort study of 3638 patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer from 4 large, geographically defined regions, 5 integrated health care systems, and 13 VA health care facilities. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years, 62% were men, 26% were Hispanic or nonwhite, 68% graduated high school, 50% had private insurance, and 41% received care in the VA or another integrated health care system. After adjustment, positron emission tomography (PET) use was 13% lower among nonwhites and Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites (risk ratio [RR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.97), 13% lower among those with Medicare than those with private insurance (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76-0.99), and 24% lower among those with an elementary school education than those with a graduate degree (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57-0.98). Disparate use of PET was not observed among patients who received care in an integrated health care setting, but the association between race/ethnicity and PET use was similar in magnitude across all other subgroups. Further analysis showed that income, education, insurance, and health care setting do not explain the association between race/ethnicity and PET use. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanics and nonwhites with non-small cell lung cancer are less likely to receive PET imaging. This finding is consistent across subgroups and not explained by differences in income, education, or insurance coverage.

Variation in experts' beliefs about lung cancer growth, progression, and prognosis.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the natural history of malignant solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN). Experts' beliefs may help fill these knowledge gaps and explain variation in clinical practices. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, we surveyed a group of lung cancer experts about tumor growth, disease progression, and prognosis in patients with malignant SPN. After completing the first survey, experts were given the opportunity during a second survey to revise their responses in light of their peers' beliefs. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% (14 of 14) for both surveys. There was consensus that disease progression depends on the tumor growth rate, that survival for patients with untreated lung cancer is approximated by a declining exponential function, and that treatment is delayed by approximately 1 tumor volume doubling time (TVDT) in patients who undergo a period of "watchful waiting." Just over half of experts (8 of 14) agreed that lung cancer progresses in three steps (from local to regional to distant disease), whereas 43% (6 of 14) preferred a 2-step model (from local to systemic disease). Likewise, 64% of experts (9 of 14) believed that malignant nodules grow exponentially, whereas 36% (5 of 14) believed that growth is slower than exponential. Experts' estimates of the risk of disease progression during a period of observation lasting 1 TVDT varied from 1 to 50%. Estimates of 5-year survival for patients in whom diagnosis and treatment were delayed by 1 TVDT varied between 40% and 80%. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in experts' beliefs about the natural history of untreated, malignant SPN. Different beliefs may be partly responsible for variation in management practices.

Timeliness across the continuum of care in veterans with lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: By providing timely care at all steps along the continuum of lung cancer care, providers may be able to limit disease progression before treatment and possibly improve clinical outcomes. This study examines the timeliness of key events in the process of care between initial radiograph and first treatment. METHODS: Dates of key events were extracted from the medical records of 2463 veterans receiving lung cancer care at 133 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. After reviewing their site's abstraction results, facility leaders completed a survey on their perceptions of their local processes of lung cancer care. RESULTS: Median time from first radiography to first treatment was 71 days. The longest intermediate time interval examined was between first treatment referral and first treatment (median = 12 days). Time from first to last diagnostic test was most variable (interquartile range = 0-27 days). We found a significant trend indicating that the time interval from first radiograph to treatment was shorter for patients with more advanced disease. This effect was also significant within six of the seven intermediate time intervals we examined. Survey responses indicated that the chart review process stimulated improvement activity. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with earlier stage disease benefit more from treatment, they do not proceed as quickly through the continuum of care as patients with more advanced disease. By measuring variability in timeliness of care at multiple steps in the lung cancer care process, facilities may identify opportunities for improvement.