RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to determine whether a tailored multifaceted intervention aimed at site-specific barriers is more effective than audit feedback alone for improving adherence to inhospital stroke performance measures (PMs): door to needle time of less than 1 hour for tissue plasminogen activator, dysphagia screening, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and warfarin treatment for atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Hospitals were paired on baseline adherence to dysphagia screening and quality improvement infrastructure and randomized to receive audit feedback alone (n=7) versus audit feedback plus site-specific interventions (n=6). Data were collected on all admitted patients with stroke seen in the neurology department before and after a 6-month implementation period. The primary end point was the difference in postintervention adherence rates for each PM, except tissue plasminogen activator because of low sample size. RESULTS: Data were collected on 2071 preintervention patients and 1240 postintervention patients. Targeted site-specific interventions, such as standing orders and standardized dysphagia screens, were imperfectly implemented during the 6-month intervention period. For atrial fibrillation, the intervention group had an 11% higher postintervention adherence rate beyond that of the control group (98% v 87%, P < .005). No other statistically significant changes in PM adherence were observed. CONCLUSION: Implementation of site-specific interventions for quality improvement of specific measures in stroke was difficult to achieve in a 6-month time frame and led to improved adherence for only one of 3 PMs. Studies with a longer intervention period and more sites are required to determine whether tailored interventions can enhance stroke improvement.
Assuntos
Serviços Médicos de Emergência/normas , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/normas , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/terapia , Idoso , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Fibrilação Atrial/complicações , Fibrilação Atrial/tratamento farmacológico , Fibrilação Atrial/prevenção & controle , Terapia Combinada/normas , Comissão Para Atividades Profissionais e Hospitalares , Transtornos de Deglutição/diagnóstico , Transtornos de Deglutição/etiologia , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/métodos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/normas , Retroalimentação , Feminino , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/tendências , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/normas , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/complicações , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/diagnóstico , Ativador de Plasminogênio Tecidual/uso terapêutico , Trombose Venosa/tratamento farmacológico , Trombose Venosa/etiologia , Trombose Venosa/prevenção & controle , Varfarina/administração & dosagemRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Develop achievable benchmarks for 9 stroke performance measures (PM) and to identify organizational factors associated with adherence. METHODS: Adherence rates and achievable benchmarks were determined for 9 PM within a study of patients (n=2294) admitted with acute ischemic stroke at 17 hospitals. Baseline information regarding hospital characteristics and stroke-specific processes of care were collected, and multi-level models were used to test the association of these factors with adherence. RESULTS: Benchmarks were >or=90% for 8 of the 9 PM. After controlling for clustering, only use of standing orders was associated with adherence to PM, including: dysphagia screening, venous thrombosis prophylaxis, consideration of tPA, and provision of educational material. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of adherence are achievable for several acute stroke PM. Use of standing orders is associated with adherence to PM requiring immediate action on admission.
Assuntos
Benchmarking/métodos , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/estatística & dados numéricos , Hospitais/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/diagnóstico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/terapia , Idoso , Transtornos de Deglutição/diagnóstico , Transtornos de Deglutição/etiologia , Feminino , Fibrinolíticos/uso terapêutico , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/normas , Hospitais/normas , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/normas , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Prospectivos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle , Ativador de Plasminogênio Tecidual/uso terapêutico , Estados Unidos , Trombose Venosa/tratamento farmacológico , Trombose Venosa/prevenção & controleRESUMO
Measuring and reporting health care quality is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice and reimbursement for specialists, including neurologists. The goal is to improve the value of care. Current major programs tie quality measurements to reimbursement, including programs from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program (and Meaningful Use), and Accountable Care Organizations. Many specialty boards, including the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, now require clinical practice quality measurements for maintenance of certification. Practitioners may find these programs confusing, overlapping, burdensome, and not clearly relevant to promoting better patient care. Yet, integrating quality metrics into practice has entered the mainstream and is increasingly tied to reimbursement. Further, over the next few years, most programs will switch from bonus incentives for participation to penalties for nonparticipation. This article aims to clarify current and rising quality measurement programs relevant to neurologists.