Development of the HIV360 international core set of outcome measures for adults living with HIV: A consensus process.

OBJECTIVES: HIV outcomes centre primarily around clinical markers with limited focus on patient-reported outcomes. With a global trend towards capturing the outcomes that matter most to patients, there is agreement that standardizing the definition of value in HIV care is key to their incorporation. This study aims to address the lack of routine, standardized data in HIV care. METHODS: An international working group (WG) of 37 experts and patients, and a steering group (SG) of 18 experts were convened from 14 countries. The project team (PT) identified outcomes by conducting a literature review, screening 1979 articles and reviewing the full texts of 547 of these articles. Semi-structured interviews and advisory groups were performed with the WG, SG and people living with HIV to add to the list of potentially relevant outcomes. The WG voted via a modified Delphi process - informed by six Zoom calls - to establish a core set of outcomes for use in clinical practice. RESULTS: From 156 identified outcomes, consensus was reached to include three patient-reported outcomes, four clinician-reported measures and one administratively reported outcome; standardized measures were included. The WG also reached agreement to measure 22 risk-adjustment variables. This outcome set can be applied to any person living with HIV aged > 18 years. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the HIV360 outcome set will enable healthcare providers to record, compare and integrate standardized metrics across treatment sites to drive quality improvement in HIV care.

Development of an International Standard Set of Value-Based Outcome Measures for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) CKD Working Group.

Value-based health care is increasingly promoted as a strategy for improving care quality by benchmarking outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of obtaining those outcomes. To support the shift toward value-based health care in chronic kidney disease (CKD), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international working group of health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of patient-centered outcomes targeted for clinical use. The considered outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews. Feedback was sought from patients and health professionals. Patients with very high-risk CKD (stages G3a/A3 and G3b/A2-G5, including dialysis, kidney transplantation, and conservative care) were selected as the target population. Using an online modified Delphi process, outcomes important to all patients were selected, such as survival and hospitalization, and to treatment-specific subgroups, such as vascular access survival and kidney allograft survival. Patient-reported outcome measures were included to capture domains of health-related quality of life, which were rated as the most important outcomes by patients. Demographic and clinical variables were identified to be used as case-mix adjusters. Use of these consensus recommendations could enable institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of their CKD care.

Proposed Nutrition Competencies for Medical Students and Physician Trainees: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: In 2022, the US House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution (House of Representatives Resolution 1118 at the 117th Congress [2021-2022]) calling for meaningful nutrition education for medical trainees. This was prompted by increasing health care spending attributed to the growing prevalence of nutrition-related diseases and the substantial federal funding via Medicare that supports graduate medical education. In March 2023, medical education professional organizations agreed to identify nutrition competencies for medical education. Objective: To recommend nutrition competencies for inclusion in medical education to improve patient and population health. Evidence Review: The research team conducted a rapid literature review to identify existing nutrition-related competencies published between July 2013 and July 2023. Additional competencies were identified from learning objectives in selected nutrition, culinary medicine, and teaching kitchen curricula; dietetic core competencies; and research team-generated de novo competencies. An expert panel of 22 nutrition subject matter experts and 15 residency program directors participated in a modified Delphi process and completed 4 rounds of voting to reach consensus on recommended nutrition competencies, the level of medical education at which they should be included, and recommendations for monitoring implementation and evaluation of these competencies. Findings: A total of 15 articles met inclusion criteria for competency extraction and yielded 187 competencies. Through review of gray literature and other sources, researchers identified 167 additional competencies for a total of 354 competencies. These competencies were compiled and refined prior to voting. After 4 rounds of voting, 36 competencies were identified for recommendation: 30 at both undergraduate and graduate levels, 2 at the undergraduate level only, and 4 at the graduate level only. Competencies fell into the following nutrition-related themes: foundational nutrition knowledge, assessment and diagnosis, communication skills, public health, collaborative support and treatment for specific conditions, and indications for referral. A total of 36 panelists (97%) recommended nutrition competencies be assessed as part of licensing and board certification examinations. Conclusions and Relevance: These competencies represent a US-based effort to use a modified Delphi process to establish consensus on nutrition competencies for medical students and physician trainees. These competencies will require an iterative process of institutional prioritization, refinement, and inclusion in current and future educational curricula as well as licensure and certification examinations.

Care homes education: what can we learn?

Medical care received by care home residents can be variable. Initiatives, such as matron-led community teams, ensure a timely response to alerts about unwell residents. But early recognition of deterioration is vital in accessing this help. The aim of this project was to design and deliver an education programme for carers. It was hypothesised that the implementation of a teaching programme may result in improved medical care for residents. By understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing teaching, we hoped to identify the components of a successful teaching programme. Four care homes in Enfield received training on topics such as deterioration recognition over a 1-year period. The project was evaluated at 3, 6 and 9 months. Each evaluation comprised: pre-and-post-teaching questionnaires, focus groups, analysis of percentages of staff trained, review of overall and potentially avoidable, hospital admission rates. A Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle structure was used. The programme was well-received by carers, who gave examples of application of learning. Modules about conditions frequently resulting in hospital admission, or concerning real cases, demonstrated the best pre-and-post lesson change scores. However, the reach of the programme was low, with attendance rates between 5% and 28%. Overall, the percentage of staff trained in deterioration recognition ranged from 35% (care home one) to 12% (care home three). Hospital admissions reduced from 37 hospital admissions to 20 over the duration of the project. Potentially avoidable admissions reduced from 16 to 5. Proving causality to the intervention was difficult. Factors facilitating delivery of training included a flexible approach, an activity-based curriculum, alignment of topics with real cases and embedding key messages in every tutorial. Barriers included: time pressures, shift work, low attendance rates, inequitable perception of the value of teaching and IT issues. Care home factors impacting on delivery included: stability of management and internal communication systems.please ensure space here.

Development of an international standard set of patient-centred outcome measures for overall paediatric health: a consensus process.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an Overall Pediatric Health Standard Set (OPH-SS) of outcome measures that captures what matters to young people and their families and recognising the biopsychosocial aspects of health for all children and adolescents regardless of health condition. DESIGN: A modified Delphi process. SETTING: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international Working Group (WG) comprised of 23 international experts from 12 countries in the field of paediatrics, family medicine, psychometrics as well as patient advisors. The WG participated in 11 video-conferences, through a modified Delphi process and 9 surveys between March 2018 and January 2020 consensus was reached on a final recommended health outcome standard set. By a literature review conducted in March 2018, 1136 articles were screened for clinician and patient-reported or proxy-reported outcomes. Further, 4315 clinical trials and 12 paediatric health surveys were scanned. Between November 2019 and January 2020, the final standard set was endorsed by a patient validation (n=270) and a health professional (n=51) survey. RESULTS: From a total of 63 identified outcomes, consensus was formed on a standard set of outcome measures that comprises 10 patient-reported outcomes, 5 clinician-reported measures, and 6 case-mix variables. The four developmental age-specific packages (ie, 0-5, 6-12, 13-17, 18-24 years) include either five or six measures with an average time for completion of 20 min. CONCLUSIONS: The OPH-SS is a starting point to drive value-based paediatric healthcare delivery from a global perspective for enhancing child and adolescent physical health and psychosocial well-being.

Unlocking the potential of value-based health care by defining global standard sets of outcome measures that matter to patients with cardiovascular diseases.

As health systems around the world increasingly look to record and improve the value of care that they provide to patients, being able to measure the outcomes that matter most to patients is vital. Clinicians today gather more data than ever before, but what is measured often has little relationship to the results of care that matter most to patients. Through its working groups of global experts in particular diseases, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement aims to define minimum Standard Sets of outcomes, along with case-mix factors to support risk adjustment and meaningful comparison. These Standard Sets may then be implemented globally empowering patients to select providers with the best outcomes at the lowest cost, empowering providers that deliver superior outcomes at competitive costs to excel, and empowering payers to negotiate contracts based on results. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has published 24 Standard Sets including coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, and stroke and is nearing the completion of its work in atrial fibrillation.

Improving Hypertension Outcome Measurement in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

High blood pressure is the leading modifiable risk factor for mortality, accounting for nearly 1 in 5 deaths worldwide and 1 in 11 in low-income countries. Hypertension control remains a challenge, especially in low-resource settings. One approach to improvement is the prioritization of patient-centered care. However, consensus on the outcomes that matter most to patients is lacking. We aimed to define a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for evaluating hypertension management in low- and middle-income countries. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened a Working Group of 18 experts and patients representing 15 countries. We used a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on a set of outcomes, case-mix variables, and a timeline to guide data collection. Literature reviews, patient interviews, a patient validation survey, and an open review by hypertension experts informed the set. The set contains 18 clinical and patient-reported outcomes that reflect patient priorities and evidence-based hypertension management and case-mix variables to allow comparisons between providers. The domains included are hypertension control, cardiovascular complications, health-related quality of life, financial burden of care, medication burden, satisfaction with care, health literacy, and health behaviors. We present a core list of outcomes for evaluating hypertension care. They account for the unique challenges healthcare providers and patients face in low- and middle-income countries, yet are relevant to all settings. We believe that it is a vital step toward international benchmarking in hypertension care and, ultimately, value-based hypertension management.

International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Set of Outcomes That Matter to People Living With Inflammatory Arthritis: Consensus From an International Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: The implementation of value-based health care in inflammatory arthritis requires a standardized set of modifiable outcomes and risk-adjustment variables that is feasible to implement worldwide. METHODS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary working group that consisted of 24 experts from 6 continents, including 6 patient representatives, to develop a standard set of outcomes for inflammatory arthritis. The process followed a structured approach, using a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the following decision areas: conditions covered by the set, outcome domains, outcome measures, and risk-adjustment variables. Consensus in areas 2 to 4 were supported by systematic literature reviews and consultation of experts. RESULTS: The ICHOM Inflammatory Arthritis Standard Set covers patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We recommend that outcomes regarding pain, fatigue, activity limitations, overall physical and mental health impact, work/school/housework ability and productivity, disease activity, and serious adverse events be collected at least annually. Validated measures for patient-reported outcomes were endorsed and linked to common reporting metrics. Age, sex at birth, education level, smoking status, comorbidities, time since diagnosis, and rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody lab testing for RA and JIA should be collected as risk-adjustment variables. CONCLUSION: We present the ICHOM inflammatory arthritis Standard Set of outcomes, which enables health care providers to implement the value-based health care framework and compare outcomes that are important to patients with inflammatory arthritis.