Quality Measures for Patients at Risk of Adverse Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration: Expert Panel Recommendations.

Importance: Despite longstanding efforts to improve health care quality for patients with complex needs who are at highest risk for hospitalization or death, to our knowledge, no guidance exists on what constitutes measurable high-quality care for this heterogeneous population. Identifying quality measures that are cross-cutting (ie, relevant to multiple chronic conditions and disease states) may enable health care professionals and health care systems to better design and report on quality improvement efforts for this patient population. Objective: To identify quality measures of care and prioritize quality-of-care concepts in the ambulatory primary care setting for patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who have complex care needs and are at high risk for adverse outcomes, such as hospitalization or death. Evidence Review: In this expert panel assessment and prioritization, relevant measure concepts for future quality measure development in 3 care categories (assessment, management, and other features of health care) were extracted from a systematic review, conducted from June 2020 to June 2021, of published studies that suggested, evaluated, or used indicators of quality care for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Measure concepts associated with single conditions, surgical or other specialty care settings, and inpatient care were excluded. A panel of 14 experts (10 VHA leaders and staff, 2 non-VHA physician investigators, and 2 veterans) discussed and rated the importance of the remaining set of potentially relevant measure concepts using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method on January 15, 2021. Measure concepts were rated on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the highest priority. A median rating of 7.5 or greater was used as the cutoff to identify the highest-priority items. Findings: The systematic review identified 519 measure concepts, from which 15 domains and 49 measure concepts were proposed for expert panel consideration. After panel discussions and changes to measure concepts, the expert panel rated 63 measure concepts in 13 domains. The measure concepts with the highest median ratings focused on caregiver availability and support, COVID-19 vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination (all rated 9.0); housing instability (rated 8.5); and physical function, depression symptoms, cognitive impairment, prescription regimen, primary care follow-up after an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and timely transmission of discharge information to primary care (all rated 8.0). Recommendations to improve care included timely assessment of housing instability, caregiver support, physical function, depression symptoms, and cognitive impairment; annual prescription regimen review; coordinated transitions in care; and preventive care including vaccinations. Conclusions and Relevance: The expert panelists identified a parsimonious set of high-priority, evidence-based, cross-cutting quality measure concepts for improving care of patients at high risk for adverse health outcomes in the VHA. These quality measures may inform both future research for patients at high risk and health care system quality improvement.

Allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic: rapid systematic review update of strategies for policymakers.

OBJECTIVE: In pandemics like COVID-19, the need for medical resources quickly outpaces available supply. policymakers need strategies to inform decisions about allocating scarce resources. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We updated a systematic review on evidence-based approaches and searched databases through May 2020 for evaluation of strategies for policymakers. RESULTS: The 201 identified studies evaluated reducing demand for healthcare, optimizing existing resources, augmenting resources, and adopting crisis standards of care. Most research exists to reduce demand (n = 149); 39 higher quality studies reported benefits of contact tracing, school closures, travel restrictions, and mass vaccination. Of 28 strategies to augment resources, 6 higher quality studies reported effectiveness of establishing temporary facilities, use of volunteers, and decision support software. Of 23 strategies to optimize existing resources, 12 higher quality studies reported successful scope of work expansions and building on existing interagency agreements. Of 15 COVID-19 studies, 5 higher quality studies reported on combinations of policies and benefits of community-wide mask policies. CONCLUSION: Despite the volume, the evidence base is limited; few strategies were empirically tested in robust study designs. The review provides a comprehensive overview of the effects of strategies to allocate resources and provides critical appraisal to identify the best available evidence.

Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization in the United States: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States. METHODS: We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089). RESULTS: Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of  intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE). CONCLUSIONS: Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.