Hospices' use of electronic medical records for quality assessment and performance improvement programs.

CONTEXT: Electronic medical records (EMRs) are increasingly viewed as essential tools for quality assurance and improvement in many care settings, but little is known about the use of EMRs by hospices in their quality assessment and performance improvement (QAPI) programs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the data sources hospices use to create quality indicators (QIs) used in their QAPI programs and to examine the domains of EMR-based QIs. METHODS: We used self-reported QIs (description, numerator, and denominator) from 911 hospices nationwide that participated in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services nationwide hospice voluntary reporting period. The data reflected QIs that hospices used for their internal QAPI programs between October 1 and December 31, 2011. We used the primary data sources for QIs reported by hospices and analyzed EMR-based QIs in terms of the quality domains and themes addressed. RESULTS: EMRs were the most frequent data source for the QIs reported, followed by family survey and paper medical record. Physical symptom management was the largest quality domain--included in 51.5% of the reported EMR-based QIs--followed by patient safety and structure and process of care. CONCLUSION: Most participating hospices use EMRs for retrieving items needed for QI calculations. EMR-based QIs address various quality domains and themes. Our findings present opportunities for potential future reporting of EMR-based quality data.

Accelerating what works: using qualitative research methods in developing a change package for a learning collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Learning (quality improvement) collaboratives are effective vehicles for driving coordinated organizational improvements. A central element of a learning collaborative is the change package-a catalogue of strategies, change concepts, and action steps that guide participants in their improvement efforts. Despite a vast literature describing learning collaboratives, little to no information is available on how the guiding strategies, change concepts, and action items are identified and developed to a replicable and actionable format that can be used to make measurable improvements within participating organizations. METHODS: The process for developing the change package for the Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Patient Safety and Clinical Pharmacy Services Collaborative entailed environmental scan and identification of leading practices, case studies, interim debriefing meetings, data synthesis, and a technical expert panel meeting. Data synthesis involved end-of-day debriefings, systematic qualitative analyses, and the use of grounded theory and inductive data analysis techniques. This approach allowed systematic identification of innovative patient safety and clinical pharmacy practices that could be adopted in diverse environments. A case study approach enabled the research team to study practices in their natural environments. Use of grounded theory and inductive data analysis techniques enabled identification of strategies, change concepts, and actionable items that might not have been captured using different approaches. DISCUSSION: Use of systematic processes and qualitative methods in identification and translation of innovative practices can greatly accelerate the diffusion of innovations and practice improvements. This approach is effective whether or not an individual organization is part of a learning collaborative.

Strategies for safe medication use in ambulatory care settings in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify strategies for safe medication use practices in ambulatory care settings, with a special focus on clinical pharmacy services. METHODS: We conducted case studies on 34 organizations, more than half of which were safety net providers. Data included discussions with 186 key informants, 3 interim debriefings, and a technical expert panel. We analyzed qualitative data using inductive analysis techniques and grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Ambulatory care organizations practice a broad range of safe medication use strategies. The inclusion of clinical pharmacy services is a culture change that supports efforts to improve patient safety and patient-centered care. Organizations integrated clinical pharmacy services when they introduced such services in a purposefully paced and gradual manner. Organizations sustained such services when they collected and reported data demonstrating improvements in patient outcomes and cost savings. Clinical pharmacy services were generally accompanied by strategies that helped organizations to provide patient-centered care; collect and measure process, safety, and clinical outcomes; promote leadership commitment; and integrate care delivery processes. These strategies interacted within organizations in synergistic rather than hierarchical or linear way. Organizational ability to provide safe, patient-centered, and efficient care that is supported by measurable data largely depends on leadership commitment and ability to integrate care processes. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory care organizations use multiple strategies for safe medication use systems. Understanding processes that promote such strategies will provide a helpful road map for other organizations in implementation and sustainability of safe medication use systems.

Physicians' views on public reporting of hospital quality data.

This article describes physicians' responses to patient questions and physicians' views about public reports on hospital quality. Interviews with 56 office-based physicians in seven states/regions used hypothetical scenarios of patients questioning referrals based on public reports of hospital quality. Responses were analyzed using an iterative coding process to develop categories and themes from data. Four themes describe physicians' responses to patients: (a) rely on existing physician-patient relationships, (b) acknowledge and consider patient perspectives, (c) take actions to follow up on patient concerns, and (d) provide patients' perspectives on quality reports. Three themes summarize responses to hospital quality reports: perceived lack of methodological rigor, content considerations in reports, and attitudes/experience regarding reports. Findings suggest that physicians take seriously patients' questions about hospital-quality reports and consider changing referral recommendations based on their concerns and/or preferences. Results underscore the importance of efforts by report developers and physician outreach/education to address physicians' methodological concerns.

Comparison of performance of traditional Medicare vs Medicare managed care.

CONTEXT: Since 2000, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been collecting information on beneficiaries' experiences with health care for Medicare managed care (MMC) and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. OBJECTIVES: To compare beneficiary experiences with managed care and FFS arrangements throughout the country and to assess the stability of those differences over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CMS administered managed care and FFS versions of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) survey to samples of beneficiaries (aged > or =65 years) from Medicare + Choice MMC organizations and from geographic strata within the traditional FFS Medicare program. We analyzed responses collected in 2000 and 2001 from 497,869 respondents: 299,058 beneficiaries enrolled in MMC plans (response rate, 82%) and 198,811 enrolled in FFS Medicare (response rate, 68%). Differences between MMC and FFS within states were assessed after adjustment for case mix and nonresponse. For estimates at the regional and national level, state estimates were combined after weighting by the MMC enrollment in the state. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four overall ratings (of the plan, personal physician, care received overall, and care received from specialists), 5 measures summarizing beneficiaries' experiences with care (getting care needed; getting care quickly; communication with clinicians; courtesy and respect of physician's office staff; and paperwork, information, and customer service), and reports of receipt of 3 preventive services (flu shots, pneumococcal vaccinations, and being advised to quit smoking) were assessed. RESULTS: Respondents in MMC and FFS plans were similar to each other and to the Medicare population as a whole. Nationally, FFS Medicare beneficiaries rated experiences with care measured by the CAHPS survey higher than did MMC beneficiaries; for instance, in ratings of care received overall (scale of 1-10) (8.91 FFS vs 8.86 MMC, P<.001, in 2000; and 8.88 FFS vs 8.78 MMC, P<.001, in 2001). Differences between FFS and MMC varied across states, however. Managed care enrollees reported significantly fewer problems with paperwork, information, and customer service (2.62 FFS vs 2.55 MMC, P<.001, in 2000; and 2.59 FFS vs 2.51 MMC, P<.001, in 2001). Enrollees in MMC were also more likely to report having received immunizations for influenza and pneumococcus (from any source) (in 2000, 77% of MMC vs 63% of FFS respondents; P<.001), and smokers were more likely to report having received counseling to quit smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that managed care was better at delivering preventive services, whereas traditional Medicare was better in other aspects of care related to access and beneficiary experiences. These relative strengths should be considered when policy decisions are made that affect the availability of choice or influence beneficiaries to choose one model of care over another.