Optimizing measurement of misdiagnosis-related harms using symptom-disease pair analysis of diagnostic error (SPADE): comparison groups to maximize SPADE validity.

Diagnostic errors in medicine represent a significant public health problem but continue to be challenging to measure accurately, reliably, and efficiently. The recently developed Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE) approach measures misdiagnosis related harms using electronic health records or administrative claims data. The approach is clinically valid, methodologically sound, statistically robust, and operationally viable without the requirement for manual chart review. This paper clarifies aspects of the SPADE analysis to assure that researchers apply this method to yield valid results with a particular emphasis on defining appropriate comparator groups and analytical strategies for balancing differences between these groups. We discuss four distinct types of comparators (intra-group and inter-group for both look-back and look-forward analyses), detailing the rationale for choosing one over the other and inferences that can be drawn from these comparative analyses. Our aim is that these additional analytical practices will improve the validity of SPADE and related approaches to quantify diagnostic error in medicine.

Reducing Overuse by Healthcare Systems: A Positive Deviance Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare in the USA is increasingly delivered by large healthcare systems that include one or more hospitals and associated outpatient practices. It is unclear what role healthcare systems play in driving or preventing overutilization of healthcare services in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To learn how high-value healthcare systems avoid overuse of services DESIGN: We identified "positive deviant" health systems using a previously constructed Overuse Index. These systems have much lower-than-average overuse of healthcare services. We confirmed that these health systems also delivered high-quality care. We conducted semi-structured interviews with executive leaders of these systems to validate a published framework for understanding drivers of overuse. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders at select healthcare systems in the USA. INTERVENTIONS: None APPROACH: We developed an interview guide and conducted semi-structured interviews. We iteratively developed a code book. Paired reviewers coded and reconciled each interview. We analyzed the interviews by applying constant comparative techniques. We mapped the emergent themes to provide the first empirical data to support a previously developed theoretical framework. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 15 leaders from 10 diverse healthcare systems. Consistent with important domains from the overuse framework, themes from our study support the role of clinicians and patients in avoiding overuse. The leaders described how they create a culture of professional practice and how they modify clinicians' attitudes to facilitate high-value practices. They also described how their patients view healthcare consumption and the characteristics of their patient populations allowed them to practice high-value medicine. They described the role of quality metrics, insurance plan ownership, and alternative payment model participation as encouraging avoidance of overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative analysis of positive deviant health systems supports the framework that is in the published literature, although health system leaders also described their financial structures as another important factor for reducing overuse and encouraging high-value care delivery.

Surgeon Volume and Laryngectomy Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between surgeon volume and operative morbidity and mortality for laryngectomy. DATA SOURCES: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 45,156 patients who underwent laryngectomy procedures for laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer between 2001 and 2011. Hospital and surgeon laryngectomy volume were modeled as categorical variables. METHODS: Relationships between hospital and surgeon volume and mortality, surgical complications, and acute medical complications were examined using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Higher-volume surgeons were more likely to operate at large, teaching, nonprofit hospitals and were more likely to treat patients who were white, had private insurance, hypopharyngeal cancer, low comorbidity, admitted electively, and to perform partial laryngectomy, concurrent neck dissection, and flap reconstruction. Surgeons treating more than 5 cases per year were associated with lower odds of medical and surgical complications, with a greater reduction in the odds of complications with increasing surgical volume. Surgeons in the top volume quintile (>9 cases/year) were associated with a decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.09 [0.01-0.74]), postoperative surgical complications (OR = 0.58 [0.45-0.74]), and acute medical complications (OR = 0.49 [0.37-0.64]). Surgeon volume accounted for 95% of the effect of hospital volume on mortality and 16%-47% of the effect of hospital volume on postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: There is a strong volume-outcome relationship for laryngectomy, with reduced mortality and morbidity associated with higher surgeon and higher hospital volumes. Observed associations between hospital volume and operative morbidity and mortality are mediated by surgeon volume, suggesting that surgeon volume is an important component of the favorable outcomes of high-volume hospital care. Laryngoscope, 133:834-840, 2023.

Development of the Leapfrog Group's Bar Code Medication Administration Standard to Address Hospital Inpatient Medication Safety.

ABSTRACT: Medication errors are the most common type of error in hospitals and reflect a leading cause of avoidable harm to patients. Bar code medication administration (BCMA) systems are a technology designed to help intercept medication errors at the point of medication administration. This article describes the process of developing, testing, and refining a standard for BCMA adoption and use in U.S. hospitals, as measured through the Leapfrog Hospital Survey. Building on the published literature and an expert panel's collective experience in studying, implementing, and using BCMA systems, the expert panel recommended a standard with 4 key domains. Leapfrog's BCMA standard provides hospitals with a "how-to guide" on what best practice looks like for using BCMA to ensure safe medication administration at the bedside.

Adjusting Quality Measures For Social Risk Factors Can Promote Equity In Health Care.

Risk adjustment of quality measures using clinical risk factors is widely accepted; risk adjustment using social risk factors remains controversial. We argue here that social risk adjustment is appropriate and necessary in defined circumstances and that social risk adjustment should be the default option when there are valid empirical arguments for and against adjustment for a given measure. Social risk adjustment is an important way to avoid exacerbating inequity in the health care system.

Are hospital ratings systems transparent? An examination of Consumer Reports and the Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade.

The health care industry is complex, dynamic, and large. In such uncertain environments where a great deal of revenue is at stake, competition and comparative claims flourish. One such manifestation is hospital ratings systems. This research examines two influential hospital ratings to explore whether the hospital ratings of each system was straightforward and reproducible. Regressions and structural equations models were fit to examine the relationships among the hospital ratings constructs. Both hospital ratings systems were excellent in their transparency and reproducibility. The Consumer Reports and Leapfrog ratings systems can confidently tout that their hospital scores reflect what they claim to measure. The unique aspects of each system are also noted.

Association Between Hospital Market Concentration and Costs of Laryngectomy.

IMPORTANCE: High-volume hospital care for laryngectomy has been shown to be associated with reduced morbidity, mortality, and costs; however, most hospitals in the United States do not perform high volumes of laryngectomies. The influence of market competition on charges and costs for such patients has not been defined. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between regional hospital market concentration, hospital charges, and costs for laryngectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 34 193 patients who underwent laryngectomy for a malignant laryngeal or hypopharyngeal neoplasm from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2011. Hospital laryngectomy volume was modeled as a categorical variable. Hospital market concentration was evaluated using a variable-radius Herfindahl-Hirschman Index from the 2003, 2006, and 2009 Hospital Market Structure Files. Statistical analysis was performed from May 19 to August 15, 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Multivariable generalized linear regression was used to evaluate associations between market concentration and total charges and costs for laryngectomy. RESULTS: Among the 34 193 patients (19.3% female and 80.7% male; mean age, 62.7 years [range, 20.0-96.0 years]), 69.2% of procedures were performed at hospitals in highly concentrated (noncompetitive) markets and 26.2% were performed at hospitals in unconcentrated (highly competitive) markets. Most high-volume hospitals (68.0%) were located in highly concentrated markets, followed by unconcentrated markets (32.0%). Market share and volume were not associated with significant differences in total charges. Unconcentrated markets were associated with 28% higher costs (95% CI, 8%-53%) relative to moderately concentrated and highly concentrated markets. High-volume hospitals were associated with 22% lower costs (95% CI, -36% to -5%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Competition among hospitals is associated with increased costs of care for laryngectomy. High-volume hospital care is associated with lower costs of care. These data suggest that hospital market consolidation of laryngectomy at centers able to meet minimum volume thresholds may improve health care value.

Association of Hospital Volume With Laryngectomy Outcomes in Patients With Larynx Cancer.

Importance: A volume-outcome association exists for larynx cancer surgery, but to date it has not been investigated for specific surgical procedures. Objectives: To characterize the volume-outcome association specifically for laryngectomy surgery and to identify a minimum hospital volume threshold associated with improved outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 45 156 patients who underwent laryngectomy procedures for a malignant laryngeal or hypopharyngeal neoplasm between January 2001 and December 2011. The analysis was performed in 2018. Hospital laryngectomy volume was modeled as a categorical variable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospitalization, and costs were examined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Among 45 156 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; age range, 20-96 years; 80.2% male) at 5516 hospitals, higher-volume hospitals were more likely to be teaching hospitals in urban locations; were more likely to treat patients who had hypopharyngeal cancer, were of white race/ethnicity, were admitted electively, had no comorbidity, and had private insurance; and were more likely to perform flap reconstruction or concurrent neck dissection. After controlling for all other variables, hospitals treating more than 6 cases per year were associated with lower odds of surgical and medical complications, with a greater reduction in the odds of complications with increasing hospital volume. High-volume hospitals in the top-volume quintile (>28 cases per year) were associated with decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.88), postoperative surgical complications (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.79), and acute medical complications (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.81). A statistically meaningful negative association was observed between very high-volume hospital care and the mean incremental length of hospitalization (-3.7 days; 95% CI, -4.9 to -2.4 days) and hospital-related costs (-$4777; 95% CI, -$9463 to -$900). Conclusions and Relevance: Laryngectomy outcomes appear to be associated with hospital volume, with reduced morbidity associated with a minimum hospital volume threshold and with reduced mortality, morbidity, length of hospitalization, and costs associated with higher hospital volume. These data support the concept of centralization of complex care at centers able to meet minimum volume thresholds to improve patient outcomes.

Developing and Testing a Chart Abstraction Tool for ICU Quality Measurement.

Quality measures are increasingly used to measure the performance of providers, hospitals, and health care systems. Intensive care units (ICUs) are an important clinical area in hospitals, given that they generate high costs and present high risks to patients. Yet, currently, few valid and clinically significant ICU-specific outcome measures are reported nationally. This study reports on the creation and evaluation of new abstraction tools that evaluate ICU patients for the following clinically important outcomes: central line-associated bloodstream infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, gastrointestinal bleed, and pressure ulcer. To allow ICUs and institutions to compare their outcomes, the tools include risk-adjustment variables that can be abstracted from the chart.

From Board to Bedside: How the Application of Financial Structures to Safety and Quality Can Drive Accountability in a Large Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: As the health care system in the United States places greater emphasis on the public reporting of quality and safety data and its use to determine payment, provider organizations must implement structures that ensure discipline and rigor regarding these data. An academic health system, as part of a performance management system, applied four key components of a financial reporting structure to support the goal of top-to-bottom accountability for improving quality and safety. FOUR KEY COMPONENTS OF A FINANCIAL REPORTING STRUCTURE: The four components implemented by Johns Hopkins Medicine were governance, accountability, reporting of consolidated quality performance statements, and auditing. Governance is provided by the health system's Patient Safety and Quality Board Committee, which reviews goals and strategy for patient safety and quality, reviews quarterly performance for each entity, and holds organizational leaders accountable for performance. An accountability plan includes escalating levels of review corresponding to the number of months an entity misses the defined performance target for a measure. A consolidated quality statement helps inform the Patient Safety and Quality Board Committee and leadership on key quality and safety issues. An audit evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of processes for data collection, validation, and storage, as to ensure the accuracy and completeness of quality measure reporting. CONCLUSION: If hospitals and health systems truly want to prioritize improvements in safety and quality, they will need to create a performance management system that ensures data validity and supports performance accountability. Without valid data, it is difficult to know whether a performance gap is due to data quality or clinical quality.

Are health care provider organizations ready to tackle diagnostic error? A survey of Leapfrog-participating hospitals.

BACKGROUND: A 2015 National Academy of Medicine report on improving diagnosis in health care made recommendations for direct action by hospitals and health systems. Little is known about how health care provider organizations are addressing diagnostic safety/quality. METHODS: This study is an anonymous online survey of safety professionals from US hospitals and health systems in July-August 2016. The survey was sent to those attending a Leapfrog Group webinar on misdiagnosis (n=188). The instrument was focused on knowledge, attitudes, and capability to address diagnostic errors at the institutional level. RESULTS: Overall, 61 (32%) responded, including community hospitals (42%), integrated health networks (25%), and academic centers (21%). Awareness was high, but commitment and capability were low (31% of leaders understand the problem; 28% have sufficient safety resources; and 25% have made diagnosis a top institutional safety priority). Ongoing efforts to improve diagnostic safety were sparse and mostly included root cause analysis and peer review feedback around diagnostic errors. The top three barriers to addressing diagnostic error were lack of awareness of the problem, lack of measures of diagnostic accuracy and error, and lack of feedback on diagnostic performance. The top two tools viewed as critically important for locally tackling the problem were routine feedback on diagnostic performance and culture change to emphasize diagnostic safety. CONCLUSIONS: Although hospitals and health systems appear to be aware of diagnostic errors as a major safety imperative, most organizations (even those that appear to be making a strong commitment to patient safety) are not yet doing much to improve diagnosis. Going forward, efforts to activate health care organizations will be essential to improving diagnostic safety.