[Reliability of peer review-like dialogue in the German statutory quality assurance program]. / Reliabilität des Strukturierten Dialogs in der gesetzlich verpflichtenden Qualitätssicherung.

BACKGROUND: Quality measurement in the German statutory program for quality in health care follows a two-step process. For selected areas of health care, quality is measured via performance indicators (first step). Providers failing to achieve benchmarks in these indicators subsequently enter into a peer review process (second step) and are asked by the respective regional authority to provide a written statement regarding their indicator results. The statements are then evaluated by peers, with the goal to assess the provider's quality of care. In the past, similar peer review-based approaches to the measurement of health care quality in other countries have shown a tendency to lack reliability. So far, the reliability of this component of the German statutory program for quality in health care has not been investigated. METHOD: Using logistic regression models, the influence of the respective regional authority on the peer review component of health care quality measurement in Germany was investigated using three exemplary indicators and data from 2016. RESULTS: Both the probability that providers are asked to provide a statement as well as the results produced by the peer review process significantly depend on the regional authority in charge. This dependence cannot be fully explained by differences in the indicator results or by differences in case volume. CONCLUSIONS: The present results are in accordance with earlier findings, which show low reliability for peer review-based approaches to quality measurement. Thus, different results produced by the peer review component of the quality measurement process may in part be due to differences in the way the review process is conducted. This heterogeneity among the regional authorities limits the reliability of this process. In order to increase reliability, the peer review process should be standardized to a higher degree, with clear review criteria, and the peers should undergo comprehensive training for the review process. Alternatively, the future peer review component could be adapted to focus rather on identification of improvement strategies than on reliable provider comparisons.

[Quality assurance and improvement in healthcare: instruments and perspectives]. / Qualität in der Gesundheitsversorgung sichern und weiterentwickeln: Maßnahmen und Perspektiven.

In the German statutory health insurance system, quality healthcare is an imperative - healthcare must correspond to current medical knowledge. The central decision-making body, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), uses directives to regulate quality standards and instruments to ensure compliance. The Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Health Care (IQTIG) supports the G­BA in this task with independent scientific recommendations. A central task of the institute is the development of quality indicators based on billing data, patient records, and patient surveys.With regard to instruments for the improvement of quality, the IQTIG distinguishes between improvement instruments, instruments based on selection decisions, and instruments based on incentives for providers. Quality improvement requires quality management and intrinsic motivation on the part of the providers. However, due to perverse incentives, intrinsic motivation and thus quality improvement alone are not always sufficient and must be supplemented by extrinsic incentives and other instruments. In particular, instruments enabling quality-oriented physician and hospital choice have not yet been implemented in Germany. The quality information required to enable patients to make such choices does not yet exist and should be based on billing data and patient surveys. Further, such quality information should be presented as simply and understandably as possible on online comparison platforms.To ensure high-quality healthcare, the various instruments for improving quality must be coordinated with one another and aligned with a system of healthcare targets. Such a system of overarching healthcare targets allows the limited resources to be focused on those areas in which the need for action is greatest.

What makes a good quality indicator set? A systematic review of criteria.

BACKGROUND: While single indicators measure a specific aspect of quality (e.g. timely support during labour), users of these indicators, such as patients, providers and policy-makers, are typically interested in some broader construct (e.g. quality of maternity care) whose measurement requires a set of indicators. However, guidance on desirable properties of indicator sets is lacking. OBJECTIVE: Based on the premise that a set of valid indicators does not guarantee a valid set of indicators, the aim of this review is 2-fold: First, we introduce content validity as a desirable property of indicator sets and review the extent to which studies in the peer-reviewed health care quality literature address this criterion. Second, to obtain a complete inventory of criteria, we examine what additional criteria of quality indicator sets were used so far. METHODS: We searched the databases Web of Science, Medline, Cinahl and PsycInfo from inception to May 2021 and the reference lists of included studies. English- or German-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with desirable characteristics of quality indicator sets were included. Applying qualitative content analysis, two authors independently coded the articles using a structured coding scheme and discussed conflicting codes until consensus was reached. RESULTS: Of 366 studies screened, 62 were included in the review. Eighty-five per cent (53/62) of studies addressed at least one of the component criteria of content validity (content coverage, proportional representation and contamination) and 15% (9/62) addressed all component criteria. Studies used various content domains to structure the targeted construct (e.g. quality dimensions, elements of the care pathway and policy priorities), providing a framework to assess content validity. The review revealed four additional substantive criteria for indicator sets: cost of measurement (21% [13/62] of the included studies), prioritization of 'essential' indicators (21% [13/62]), avoidance of redundancy (13% [8/62]) and size of the set (15% [9/62]). Additionally, four procedural criteria were identified: stakeholder involvement (69% [43/62]), using a conceptual framework (44% [27/62]), defining the purpose of measurement (26% [16/62]) and transparency of the development process (8% [5/62]). CONCLUSION: The concept of content validity and its component criteria help assessing whether conclusions based on a set of indicators are valid conclusions about the targeted construct. To develop a valid indicator set, careful definition of the targeted construct including its (sub-)domains is paramount. Developers of quality indicators should specify the purpose of measurement and consider trade-offs with other criteria for indicator sets whose application may reduce content validity (e.g. costs of measurement) in light thereof.