Actualización 2022 de los indicadores para la calidad asistencial y la atención farmacéutica a las personas que viven con el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana / 2022 update of the indicators for quality of care and pharmaceutical care for people living with human immunodeficiency virus

Objetivo: actualizar y definir los indicadores para la mejora de la calidad asistencial y la atención farmacéutica a las personas que viven con infección por VIH en España. Método: el presente proyecto, que actualiza la versión anterior del documento de 2013, se desarrolló en 4 fases de trabajo realizadas entre enero y junio de 2022.En la fase 1, de organización, se creó un grupo de trabajo conformado por 7 especialistas en farmacia hospitalaria con amplia experiencia en atención farmacéutica y procedentes de distintos servicios del territorio nacional. Adicionalmente otros 34 especialistas, participaron en la valoración de los indicadores a través de 2 rondas de evaluación online para generación del consenso.Para la fase 2, inicialmente, se llevó a cabo una revisión bibliográfica con el objetivo de establecer una base a partir de la cual poder definir una propuesta de criterios de calidad e indicadores. A continuación, se realizó una propuesta preliminar de criterios y se establecieron revisiones para su ajuste en varias reuniones de trabajo telemáticas.En la fase 3 se estableció el consenso basado en la metodología de consenso Delphi-Rand/UCLA.Adicionalmente todos los indicadores clasificados como adecuados y necesarios fueron agrupados según 2 niveles de recomendación de monitorización, de manera que pueda orientar a los servicios en la prioridad de su medición: claves y avanzados.Por último, en la fase 4 se elaboró el documento final del proyecto, junto con las fichas descriptivas correspondientes para cada indicador con la finalidad de facilitar su medición y evaluación por parte de los servicios de farmacia hospitalaria. Resultados: se obtuvo un listado consensuado de ítems conformado por 79 indicadores adecuados y necesarios que permiten establecer un seguimiento y monitorización de la calidad y actividad de la atención farmacéutica a las personas que viven con VIH. De los mismos, 60 fueron establecidos como clave y 19 avanzados. Conclusiones: (AU)

Objective: To update and define indicators for improving the quality of care and pharmaceutical care for people living with HIV infection in Spain. Method: The present project, which updates the previous version of the 2013 document, was developed in four work phases carried out between January and June 2022.In phase 1, the organization phase, a working group was created, made up of seven hospital pharmacy specialists with extensive experience in pharmaceutical care and from different SFHs in Spain. In addition, another 34 specialists participated in the evaluation of the indicators through two rounds of online evaluation to generate consensus.For phase 2, initially, a review of the identified reference literature was carried out with the aim of establishing a basis from which to define a proposal for quality criteria and indicators. Then, a preliminary proposal of criteria was made and revisions were established for their adjustment in several telematic work meetings.In phase 3, consensus was established based on the Delphi-Rand/UCLA consensus methodology.In addition, all the indicators classified as appropriate and necessary were grouped according to two levels of monitoring recommendation, so as to guide the hospital pharmacy services in the priority of their measurement: key and advanced.Finally, in phase 4, the final project document was prepared, along with the corresponding descriptive sheets for each indicator in order to facilitate the measurement and evaluation of the indicators by the hospital pharmacy services. Results: Following the consensus methodology used, a list of items made up of 79 appropriate and necessary indicators was drawn up to establish a follow-up and monitoring of the quality and activity of pharmaceutical care for people living with HIV. Of these, 60 were established as key and 19 advanced. Conclusions ... (AU)

Organization and Performance of US Health Systems.

Importance: Health systems play a central role in the delivery of health care, but relatively little is known about these organizations and their performance. Objective: To (1) identify and describe health systems in the United States; (2) assess differences between physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems; and (3) compare quality and cost of care delivered by physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems. Evidence Review: Health systems were defined as groups of commonly owned or managed entities that included at least 1 general acute care hospital, 10 primary care physicians, and 50 total physicians located within a single hospital referral region. They were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data, Internal Revenue Service filings, Medicare and commercial claims, and other data. Health systems were categorized as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems. Quality of preventive care, chronic disease management, patient experience, low-value care, mortality, hospital readmissions, and spending were assessed for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to system and nonsystem physicians. Prices for physician and hospital services and total spending were assessed in 2018 commercial claims data. Outcomes were adjusted for patient characteristics and geographic area. Findings: A total of 580 health systems were identified and varied greatly in size. Systems accounted for 40% of physicians and 84% of general acute care hospital beds and delivered primary care to 41% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Academic and large nonprofit systems accounted for a majority of system physicians (80%) and system hospital beds (64%). System hospitals were larger than nonsystem hospitals (67% vs 23% with >100 beds), as were system physician practices (74% vs 12% with >100 physicians). Performance on measures of preventive care, clinical quality, and patient experience was modestly higher for health system physicians and hospitals than for nonsystem physicians and hospitals. Prices paid to health system physicians and hospitals were significantly higher than prices paid to nonsystem physicians and hospitals (12%-26% higher for physician services, 31% for hospital services). Adjusting for practice size attenuated health systems differences on quality measures, but price differences for small and medium practices remained large. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, health system physicians and hospitals delivered a large portion of medical services. Performance on clinical quality and patient experience measures was marginally better in systems but spending and prices were substantially higher. This was especially true for small practices. Small quality differentials combined with large price differentials suggests that health systems have not, on average, realized their potential for better care at equal or lower cost.

Evaluación del cumplimiento de registros clínicos de enfermería en un hospital de segundo nivel atención / Evaluation of compliance with clinical nursing records in a secondary care hospital

Introducción: los registros clínicos de enfermería conforman la evidencia escrita de los cuidados otorgados al paciente, son medio de comunicación y coordinación entre profesionales de la salud; los registros están orientados a documentar los cuidados en un marco ético legal, además de ser un indicador para la calidad del cuidado. Objetivo: evaluar el cumplimiento de los registros clínicos de enfermería. Metodología: estudio cuantitativo, de diseño transversal descriptivo. Se realizó en el Hospital General de Zona No. 2 del IMSS de Fresnillo, México. Se utilizó el total de los registros clínicos de enfermería del tablero de control, se capturaron en el instrumento de evaluación de los registros clínicos de enfermería, y se analizaron mediante estadística descriptiva, medidas de tendencia central. Resultados: el porcentaje de cumplimiento de los registros clínicos de enfermería es de 8.03%, el porcentaje de congruencia de indicaciones médicas con los registros clínicos de enfermería es de 84.48%, por lo que queda en el parámetro de 80% con base en lo estipulado en el indicador institucional clave 2660-021-002. Conclusiones: dentro del indicador de evaluación por rubro, 15 de 18 se encuentran en suficiente y tres en insuficiente; respecto al cumplimiento es suficiente, al igual que en el porcentaje de congruencia de indicaciones médicas con registros clínicos de enfermería.

Introduction: Clinical nursing records make up the written evidence of the care given to the patient, they are a means of communication and coordination between health professionals; the records are aimed at documenting care in a legal ethical framework, as well as being an indicator for the quality of care. Objective: To evaluate the compliance of the clinical nursing records. Methodology: Quantitative study, descriptive cross-sectional design. It was carried out at the General Hospital of Zone No. 2 of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Fresnillo, Mexico. The total number of clinical nursing records from the control panel were used, they were captured in the evaluation instrument of clinical nursing records, and they were analyzed using descriptive statistics, measures of central tendency. Results: The percentage of compliance of the clinical nursing records is 8.03%, the percentage of congruence of medical indications with the clinical nursing records is 84.48%, so it remains within the parameter of 80% based on the stipulated in the key institutional indicator 2660-021-002. Conclusions: within the evaluation indicator by category, 15 of 18 are found to be sufficient and three are insufficient; Regarding compliance, it is sufficient, as is the percentage of congruence of medical indications with clinical nursing records.

Refining a capability development framework for building successful consumer and staff partnerships in healthcare quality improvement: A coproduced eDelphi study.

BACKGROUND: The capability of consumers and staff may be critical for authentic and effective partnerships in healthcare quality improvement (QI). Capability frameworks describe core knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, and behaviours and guide learning and development at individual and organizational levels. OBJECTIVE: To refine a capability framework for successful partnerships in healthcare QI which was coproduced from a scoping review. DESIGN: A two-round eDelphi design was used. The International Expert Panel rated the importance of framework items in supporting successful QI partnerships, and suggested improvements. They also rated implementation options and commented on the influence of context. PARTICIPANTS: Seven Research Advisory Group members were recruited to support the research team. The eDelphi panel included 53 people, with 44 (83%) and 42 (77. 8%) participating in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. They were from eight countries and had diverse backgrounds. RESULTS: The Research Advisory Group and panel endorsed the framework and summary diagram as valuable resources to support the growth of authentic and meaningful partnerships in QI across healthcare contexts, conditions, and countries. A consensus was established on content and structure. Substantial rewording included a stronger emphasis on growth, trust, respect, inclusivity, diversity, and challenging the status quo. The final capability development framework included three domains: Personal Attributes, Relationships and Communication, and Principles and Practices. The Equalizing Decision Making, Power, and Leadership capability was foundational and positioned across all domains. Ten capabilities with twenty-seven capability descriptions were also included. The Principles and Practices domain, Equalizing Decision Making, Power, and Leadership capability, and almost half (44.4%) of the capability descriptions were rated as more important for staff than consumers (p < .01). However, only the QI processes and practices capability description did not meet the inclusion threshold for consumers. Thus, the framework was applicable to staff and consumers. CONCLUSION: The refined capability development framework provides direction for planning and provision of learning and development regarding QI partnerships. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two consumers were full members of the research team and are coauthors. A Research Advisory Group, inclusive of consumers, guided study execution and translation planning. More than half of the panel were consumers.

Application of PDCA Process Management in Day Operation Ward and the Influence of Nursing Quality and Safety.

Objective: To survey the application of PDCA (plan, do, check, and action) process management in day operation ward and the influence of nursing quality and safety. Methods: The routine nursing management was carried out in our hospital from March 2019 to March 2020, which was set as the control group (N = 20), and the PDCA process management was implemented from March 2020 to March 2021 as the research group (N = 20). Twenty nurses and patients were selected as subjects in two periods of time. The nursing quality, the score of individual quality control examination in clinical department, the nursing quality of operating room, the incidence of adverse events and nursing errors, the number of problems existing in the quality management of nursing documents, and the score of nursing satisfaction were accessed. Results: In the comparison of nursing quality, the nursing safety, specialty quality, and nursing norms of the study group were higher compared to the control (P < 0.05). In terms of the scores of individual quality control examination in clinical departments, the scores of ward management, rescue, therapeutic articles, drug management, first-level nursing, nursing documents, and head nurses in the study group were greater compared to the control (P < 0.05). In terms of the operating room nursing quality score, the instrument management, instrument preparation, nurses' cooperation skills, disinfection and isolation quality, and the total score of the study group were above the control (P < 0.05). In terms of the incidence of operative adverse events and nursing errors, the incidence of nosocomial infection, iatrogenic injury, information check error, equipment failure, violation of operation regulations, ECG monitoring error, infusion operation error, and medication error in the study group was lower compared to the control (P < 0.05). According to the comparison of the number of problems existing in the quality management of nursing documents, the number of problems in temperature sheet, medical order, evaluation sheet, nursing record, and other nursing documents in the study group was lower than the control (P < 0.05). The scores of nursing communication, professional technology, nursing service attitude, nursing environment, and knowledge education in the study group were higher in contrast to the control (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The application of PDCA management can effectively enhance the nursing quality and safety of the day operation ward, further facilitate the quality of hospital nursing work, and improve patient satisfaction, which exert great potential, and application value in the management of day ward in the future.

Telehealth: Opportunities to Improve Access, Quality, and Cost in Pediatric Care.

The use of telehealth technology to connect with patients has expanded significantly over the past several years, particularly in response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This technical report describes the present state of telehealth and its current and potential applications. Telehealth has the potential to transform the way care is delivered to pediatric patients, expanding access to pediatric care across geographic distances, leveraging the pediatric workforce for care delivery, and improving disparities in access to care. However, implementation will require significant efforts to address the digital divide to ensure that telehealth does not inadvertently exacerbate inequities in care. The medical home model will continue to evolve to use telehealth to provide high-quality care for children, particularly for children and youth with special health care needs, in accordance with current and evolving quality standards. Research and metric development are critical for the development of evidence-based best practices and policies in these new models of care. Finally, as pediatric care transitions from traditional fee-for-service payment to alternative payment methods, telehealth offers unique opportunities to establish value-based population health models that are financed in a sustainable manner.

Thirty-Minute Psychiatric Management Visits in Academic Medical Centers: Framing and Exploring Distinct Clinical-Educational Social Processes.

ABSTRACT: To address high clinical demand and manage workflow, some university-based practice settings are tending to replace traditional hour-long outpatient appointments with 30-minute psychiatric management visits, which must comply with multiple regulatory requirements for documentation and billing. This care model can significantly shape the culture of psychiatric treatment and education. Based on the limited published literature on this topic and pooled experiences of faculty, residents, and administrators, this article offers observations and raises questions concerning 1) clinical, educational and administrative benefits, limitations, and challenges for conducting 30-minute psychiatric visits in training contexts; 2) how administrative impositions affecting resident and faculty time and attention impact clinical encounters; 3) how various teaching settings manage regulatory requirements differently; and 4) considerations for education needs and opportunities, research gaps, and policy implications. Quality of care and education could be improved by judicious overhaul of administrative requirements to minimize burdens offering little clinical or educational value.

College complaints against resident physicians in Canada: a retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association data from 2013 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: An understanding of regulatory complaints against resident physicians is important for practice improvement. We describe regulatory college complaints against resident physicians using data from the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of college complaint cases involving resident doctors closed by the CMPA, a mutual medicolegal defence organization for more than 100 000 physicians, representing an estimated 95% of Canadian physicians. Eligible cases were those closed between 2008 and 2017 (for time trends) or between 2013 and 2017 (for descriptive analyses). To explore the characteristics of college cases, we extracted the reason for complaint, the case outcome, whether the complaint involved a procedure, and whether the complaint stemmed from a single episode or multiple episodes of care. We also conducted a 10-year trend analysis of cases closed from 2008 to 2017, comparing cases involving resident doctors with cases involving only nonresident physicians. RESULTS: Our analysis included 142 cases that involved 145 patients. Over the 10-year period, college complaints involving residents increased significantly (p = 0.003) from 5.4 per 1000 residents in 2008 to 7.9 per 1000 in 2017. While college complaints increased for both resident and nonresident physicians over the study period, the increase in complaints involving residents was significantly lower than the increase across all nonresident CMPA members (p < 0.001). For cases from the descriptive analysis (2013-2017), the top complaint was deficient patient assessment (69/142, 48.6%). Some patients (22/145, 15.2%) experienced severe outcomes. Most cases (135/142, 97.9%) did not result in severe physician sanctions. Our classification of complaints found 106 of 163 (65.0%) involved clinical problems, 95 of 163 (58.3%) relationship problems (e.g., communication) and 67 of 163 (41.1%) professionalism problems. In college decisions, 36 of 163 (22.1%) had a classification of clinical problem, 66 of 163 (40.5%) a patient-physician relationship problem and 63 of 163 (38.7%) a professionalism problem. In 63 of 163 (38.7%) college decisions, the college had no criticism. INTERPRETATION: Problems with communication and professionalism feature prominently in resident college complaints, and we note the potential for mismatch between patient and health care provider perceptions of care. These results may direct medical education to areas of potential practice improvement.

Strategies for sustaining high-quality pediatric asthma care in community hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To identify strategies associated with sustained guideline adherence and high-quality pediatric asthma care in community hospitals. DATA SOURCES: Primary qualitative data from clinicians in hospitals across the United States (collected December 2019-February 2021). STUDY DESIGN: Pathways for Improving Pediatric Asthma Care (PIPA) was a national quality improvement (QI) intervention. In a prior quantitative study, data from 23 community hospitals in PIPA were analyzed to identify sites with the highest and lowest performance in sustaining improvements for 2 years. In this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with multidisciplinary clinicians from these hospitals to identify strategies associated with sustainability. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We purposefully sampled and interviewed participants involved in clinical care of children hospitalized with asthma at the identified hospitals (those with the highest/lowest sustainability performance). We transcribed and analyzed interview data using constant comparative methods. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Clinicians (n = 19) from five higher- and three lower-performing hospitals participated. In higher-performing hospitals, dedicated local champions more consistently provided reminders of evidence-based practices and delivered ongoing education. They also modified/developed electronic health record (EHR) tools (e.g., order sets with decision support). Higher-performing hospitals had a collaborative culture receptive to practice change and set firm expectations that evidence-based practices would be followed without exception. In lower-performing hospitals, participants described unique barriers, including delays in modifying the EHR and lack of automation of EHR tools (requiring clinicians to remember new EHR tasks without automated prompts). Barriers to sustainability for all hospitals included challenges with quality monitoring, decreasing focus of local champions over time, and ongoing difficulties developing consensus around evidence-based practices. CONCLUSIONS: To better ensure sustained high-quality care for children with asthma and greater returns on QI investments, QI leaders should prioritize: designating long-term local champions to continue reminders and educational efforts and developing electronic order sets to provide ongoing decision support.

Indicadores de calidad en la atención de salud en cirugía oncológica de cabeza y cuello / Quality indicators in health care in head and neck cancer surgery

Resumen La mayoría de los servicios de salud han experimentado un aumento de los costos asociados a la atención de salud lo que ha llevado a adoptar medidas para optimizar la costo-efectividad de los servicios otorgados. Desde esa perspectiva surge la atención de salud basada en el valor. El concepto de "calidad en la atención de salud" se ha definido como el grado en el cual los servicios de salud aumentan la posibilidad de generar ciertos desenlaces en salud a los que se aspira. Los indicadores de calidad de clasifican en indicadores de estructura, de proceso, y de desenlace. Los indicadores de estructura se refieren a las características del sistema de salud o de la institución hospitalaria. Los indicadores de proceso se refieren a los que el proveedor de servicios de salud realiza para el proceso de atención en salud, mientras que los indicadores de desenlace se refieren a los resultados del proceso en el paciente. El objetivo de la presente revisión es proveer un marco conceptual para dar un contexto al concepto de indicadores de calidad en salud y el rol que estos juegan en cirugía oncológica de cabeza y cuello. Se debe aspirar a lograr un mayor cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad en cirugía oncológica de cabeza y cuello, especialmente en instituciones terciarias de referencia. Aplicar indicadores de calidad en el manejo oncológico en cabeza y cuello permitiría mejorar tanto la percepción y satisfacción del usuario, como también mejorar resultados oncológicos en estos pacientes.

Abstract Most health services have experienced an increase in the costs associated with health care, which has led to the adoption of measures to optimize the cost-effectiveness of the services provided. From this perspective, the concept of value-based health care emerged. The concept of "quality in health care" has been defined as the degree to which health services increase the possibility of generating certain desired health outcomes. Quality indicators are classified into structure, process, and outcome indicators. The structure indicators refer to the characteristics of the health system or the hospital institution. Process indicators refer to those that the health service provider performs for the health care process, while outcome indicators refer to the results of the process in the patient. The objective of this review is to provide a conceptual framework to give a context to the concept of health quality indicators and the role they play in head and neck surgical oncology. The system should aspire to achieve greater compliance with quality indicators in head and neck cancer surgery, especially in referral tertiary institutions. Applying quality indicators in head and neck cancer management would improve both user perception and satisfaction, as well as improve oncological results in these patients.

Financial Profit in Medicine: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians.

The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics. In this position paper, ACP considers the effect of mergers, integration, private equity investment, nonprofit hospital requirements, and conversions from nonprofit to for-profit status on patients, physicians, and the health care system.

Using Structural Empowerment to Improve Outcomes.

In the changing healthcare climate, a robust continuous professional development program is critical to ensure excellent patient care and the best outcomes. It is essential for educators and leaders to understand the factors that enhance the impact of continuous professional development. Organizational leadership must support successful education programs and the ability to provide educational activities. In this month's Magnet® Perspectives, we will review how the Institute of Medicine and Quadruple Aim framework can support structural empowerment through continuous professional development to improve outcomes.