RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Physicians report outpatient quality measures from data in electronic health records to facilitate care improvement and qualify for incentive payments. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and validity of exceptions to quality measures and to test a system for classifying the reasons for these exceptions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: 5 internal medicine or cardiology practices. PARTICIPANTS: 47,075 patients with coronary artery disease between 2006 and 2007. MEASUREMENTS: Counts of adherence with and exceptions to 4 quality measures, on the basis of automatic reports of recommended drug therapy by computer software and separate manual reviews of electronic health records. RESULTS: 3.5% of patients who had a drug recommended had an exception to the drug and were not prescribed it (95% CI, 3.4% to 3.7%). Clinicians did prescribe the recommended drug for many other patients with exceptions. In 538 randomly selected records, 92.6% (CI, 90.3% to 94.9%) of the exceptions reported automatically by computer software were also exceptions during manual review. Most medical exceptions were clinical contraindications, drug allergies, or drug intolerances. In 592 randomly selected records, an unreported exception or a drug prescription was found during manual review for 74.6% (CI, 71.1% to 78.1%) of patients for whom automatic reporting recorded a quality failure. LIMITATION: The study used a convenience sample of practices, nonstandardized data extraction methods, only drug-related quality measures, and no financial incentives. CONCLUSION: Exceptions to recommended therapy occur infrequently and are usually valid. Physicians frequently prescribed drugs even when exceptions were present. Automated reports of quality failure often miss critical information. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Assuntos
Doença da Artéria Coronariana/tratamento farmacológico , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/normas , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Idoso , Codificação Clínica/normas , Estudos Transversais , Prescrições de Medicamentos/normas , Humanos , Masculino , Observação , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Reembolso de Incentivo , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of community-wide performance measurement and feedback on key processes and outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: Complete medical record (hospital chart) review for indications, care processes, and outcomes was performed on a random sample of Medicare patients undergoing CEA in 10 states (Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma) during baseline (Jun 1, 1995 to May 31, 1996) and remeasurement (Jun 1, 1998 to May 31, 1999) periods. In addition to review of the index hospital stay, hospital admissions within 30 days of the procedure were reviewed and the Medicare enrollment database queried to identify out-of-hospital deaths, to determine 30-day outcome results. The baseline data by state were provided to the Medicare Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) in the respective states, and quality improvement initiatives were encouraged. RESULTS: We reviewed 9945 primary CEA alone procedures, 236 CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures, and 380 repeat CEA operations during the baseline period (B), and 9745 primary CEA alone procedures, 233 CEA and CABG procedures, and 401 repeat CEA operations during the remeasurement period (R). There was a significant decrease in the combined event rate (30-day stroke or mortality) for CEA alone procedures between baseline and remeasurement (B, 5.6%; R, 5.0%). A decrease occurred in each of the indication strata; transient ischemic attack or stroke (B, 7.7%; R, 6.9%), nonspecific symptoms (B, 5.9%; R, 5.4%), and no symptoms (B, 4.1%; R, 3.8%). The combined event rate also decreased for CEA and CABG (B, 17.4%; R, 13.3%) and repeat CEA operations (B, 6.8%; R, 5.7%). The remeasurement period state-to-state variation in combined event rate for CEA alone ranged from 2.7% (Georgia) to 5.9% (Indiana) for all indications combined, from 4.4% (Georgia) to 10.9% (Michigan) in patients with recent transient ischemia or stroke, from 1.4% (Georgia) to 6.0% (Oklahoma) in patients with no symptoms, and from 3.7% (Georgia) to 7.9% (Indiana) in patients with nonspecific symptoms. There were significant increases in preoperative antiplatelet administration (62%-67%; P <.0001) and patching (29%-45%; P =.05) from baseline to remeasurement in the CEA alone subset. Preoperative antiplatelet administration and patching were associated with improved outcomes in the combined baseline and remeasurement data. CONCLUSIONS: Community-wide quality improvement initiatives with performance measurement and confidential reporting of provider level data can lead to improvement in important care processes and outcomes. There is considerable variation between states in outcome and process, and thus continued room for improvement. Quality improvement projects that include standardized confidential outcome reporting should be encouraged. Preoperative antiplatelet therapy administration and patching rates should be considered as evidence-based performance measures.
Assuntos
Endarterectomia das Carótidas , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/estatística & dados numéricos , Endarterectomia das Carótidas/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Medicare , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Distribuição Aleatória , Estudos de Amostragem , Estados UnidosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The management of combined carotid and coronary disease is controversial, and the outcomes of combined carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have not been determined on a community-wide basis. This study was undertaken to evaluate the community-wide outcomes of combined CEA and CABG and to evaluate the risk for adverse events. METHODS: A complete medical record review of 10,561 CEA procedures randomly selected from Medicare patients undergoing CEA in 10 states was performed. In this sample, 226 procedures were performed in combination with CABG in the same operative event. RESULTS: Recent ipsilateral stroke or transient ischemic attack was the indication for the CEA in only 12% of patients undergoing CEA/CABG, and 56% were asymptomatic with respect to the carotid lesion. The combined stroke and death rate was 17.7% (25 nonfatal strokes, two fatal strokes, and 13 nonstroke deaths). Eighty percent of the nonfatal strokes were disabling. Proximal aortic arch atherosclerosis and symptomatic carotid stenosis were associated with stroke (P <.05). Female gender, emergent operation, redo CABG, blood pressure on pump, total pump time, presence of left main disease, and number of diseased coronaries were associated with mortality (P <.05). The strokes appeared to be associated with the operative event, but diagnosis was delayed and postevent carotid patency was not documented. Most strokes were not limited to the hemisphere ipsilateral to the CEA. CONCLUSION: The community-wide outcomes of combined CEA/CABG in the Medicare population are inferior to those reported in many single-institution reviews. Diagnosis of postoperative stroke is often delayed, and most strokes are not limited to the hemisphere ipsilateral to the CEA operative site.