RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Anesthesiology Performance Improvement and Reporting Exchange (ASPIRE) Collaborative Quality Initiative (CQI) was launched as a partnership among hospitals to measure quality, review evidence-based practices, and improve anesthesia-related outcomes. Cost savings and improved patient outcomes have been associated with surgical CQI participation, but the impact of an anesthesia CQI on health care cost has not been thoroughly assessed. In this study, we evaluated whether participation in an anesthesia CQI led to health care savings. We hypothesized that ASPIRE participation is associated with reduced total episode payments for payers and major, high-volume procedures included in the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) registry. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we compared MVC episode payment data from Group 1 ASPIRE hospitals, the first cluster of 8 Michigan hospitals to join ASPIRE in January 2015, to non-ASPIRE matched control hospitals. MVC computes price-standardized, risk-adjusted payments for patients insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Preferred Provider Organization, Blue Care Network Health Maintenance Organization, and Medicare Fee-for-Service plans. Episodes from 2014 comprised the pre-ASPIRE time period, and episodes from June 2016 to July 2017 constituted the post-ASPIRE time period. We performed a difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate whether ASPIRE implementation was associated with greater reduction in total episode payments compared to the change in the control hospitals during the same time periods. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant reduction in total episode (-$719; 95% CI [-$1340 to -$97]; P = .023) payments at the 8 ASPIRE hospitals (N = 17,852 cases) compared to the change observed in 8 matched non-ASPIRE hospitals (N = 12,987 cases) for major, high-volume surgeries, including colectomy, colorectal cancer resection, gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, hysterectomy, joint replacement (knee and hip), and hip fracture repair. In secondary analyses, 30-day postdischarge (-$354; 95% CI [-$582 to -$126]; P = .002) payments were also significantly reduced in ASPIRE hospitals compared to non-ASPIRE controls. Subgroup analyses revealed a significant reduction in total episode payments for joint replacements (-$860; 95% CI [-$1222 to -$499]; P < .001) at ASPIRE-participating hospitals. Sensitivity analyses including patient-level covariates also showed consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in an anesthesiology CQI, ASPIRE, is associated with lower total episode payments for selected major, high-volume procedures. This analysis supports that participation in an anesthesia CQI can lead to reduced health care payments.
RESUMEN
Use of the electronic health record (EHR) has become a routine part of perioperative care in the United States. Secondary use of EHR data includes research, quality, and educational initiatives. Fundamental to secondary use is a framework to ensure fidelity, transparency, and completeness of the source data. In developing this framework, competing priorities must be considered as to which data sources are used and how data are organized and incorporated into a useable format. In assembling perioperative data from diverse institutions across the United States and Europe, the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) has developed methods to support such a framework. This special article outlines how MPOG has approached considerations of data structure, validation, and accessibility to support multicenter integration of perioperative EHRs. In this multicenter practice registry, MPOG has developed processes to extract data from the perioperative EHR; transform data into a standardized format; and validate, deidentify, and transfer data to a secure central Coordinating Center database. Participating institutions may obtain access to this central database, governed by quality and research committees, to inform clinical practice and contribute to the scientific and clinical communities. Through a rigorous and standardized approach to ensure data integrity, MPOG enables data to be usable for quality improvement and advancing scientific knowledge. As of March 2019, our collaboration of 46 hospitals has accrued 10.7 million anesthesia records with associated perioperative EHR data across heterogeneous vendors. Facilitated by MPOG, each site retains access to a local repository containing all site-specific perioperative data, distinct from source EHRs and readily available for local research, quality, and educational initiatives. Through committee approval processes, investigators at participating sites may additionally access multicenter data for similar initiatives. Emerging from this work are 4 considerations that our group has prioritized to improve data quality: (1) data should be available at the local level before Coordinating Center transfer; (2) data should be rigorously validated against standardized metrics before use; (3) data should be curated into computable phenotypes that are easily accessible; and (4) data should be collected for both research and quality improvement purposes because these complementary goals bolster the strength of each endeavor.