A protocol for ongoing systematic scoping reviews of World Trade Center Health research.

BACKGROUND: The World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program ("Program") seeks to assess the inventory, quality, and impact of its funded research in the context of all clinical and translational research involving WTC populations. This paper presents a protocol for ongoing scoping reviews of WTC-related health research. METHODS: Using terms relevant to the September 11 attacks, we will search OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase for records of peer-reviewed publications. Title, abstract, and full text screening will be used to exclude records according to a priori criteria. Data abstraction will be performed on all articles that meet inclusion criteria using a standardized query form that was developed in collaboration with NIOSH. A team of reviewers will be trained to abstract data from included articles. Articles will be double-reviewed, and disagreements will be adjudicated. RESULTS: We will summarize existing research involving WTC populations. The summary will assess the extent, nature, and signals of impact of WTC-related health research. CONCLUSIONS: Our review will lay the groundwork for additional study of research impact by identifying population, clinical, and translational topics that can be assessed through future focused reviews. It will also support planning activities by Program policy makers and stakeholders as they work to achieve the Program's research goals. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This publication serves as documentation of the protocol.

Translational Impacts of World Trade Center Health Program Research: A Mixed Methods Study.

The World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program (hereafter Program) provides medical monitoring and treatment for its Members: the responders and survivors who were at the WTC and related sites or located within the New York City disaster area during and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Scientific research supported by the Program provides an evidence base for the health monitoring and clinical care of Members. In this article, the authors describe the findings and recommendations of a four-year study of the Program's research portfolio and its translational impact. They present results from a mixed methods assessment that integrates (1) a scoping review of nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed publications and thousands of pages of grey literature that reference research related to the health effects of 9/11, (2) stakeholder perspectives gathered through focus groups and interviews, and (3) a review of Program documentation. The study is intended to guide planning by Program leadership as it aims to maximize the impacts of Program research and achieve its goal of translating research into care for those affected by the attacks on 9/11.

Examining differential performance of 3 medical home recognition programs.

OBJECTIVES: We examined differences in patient outcomes associated with 3 patient-centered medical home (PCMH) recognition programs-National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Level 3, The Joint Commission (TJC), and Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC)-among Medicare beneficiaries receiving care at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). STUDY DESIGN: We used data from CMS' FQHC Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration, in which participating FQHCs received assistance to achieve NCQA Level 3 PCMH recognition. We assessed the impact of the 3 recognition programs on utilization, quality, and Medicare expenditures using a sample of 1108 demonstration and comparison FQHCs. METHODS: Using propensity-weighted difference-in-differences analyses, we compared changes in outcomes over 3 years for beneficiaries attributed to FQHCs that achieved each type of recognition relative to beneficiaries attributed to FQHCs that did not achieve recognition. RESULTS: Recognized FQHCs, compared with nonrecognized FQHCs, were associated with significant 3-year changes in FQHC visits, non-FQHC primary care visits, specialty visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, a composite diabetes process measure, and Medicare expenditures. Changes varied in direction and strength by recognition type. In year 3, compared with nonrecognized sites, NCQA Level 3 sites were associated with greater increases in ambulatory visits and quality and greater reductions in hospitalizations and expenditures (P <.01), TJC sites were associated with significant reductions in ED visits and hospitalizations (P <.01), and AAAHC sites had changes in the opposite direction of what we anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneous changes in beneficiary utilization, quality, and expenditures by recognition type may be explained by differences in recognition criteria, evaluation processes, and documentation requirements.

Understanding Treatment of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the Military Health System.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered a signature injury of modern warfare, though TBIs can also result from training accidents, falls, sports, and motor vehicle accidents. Among service members diagnosed with a TBI, the majority of cases are mild TBIs (mTBIs), also known as concussions. Many of these service members receive care through the Military Health System, but the amount, type, and quality of care they receive has been largely unknown. A RAND study, the first to examine the mTBI care of a census of patients in the Military Health System, assessed the number and characteristics (including deployment history and history of TBI) of nondeployed, active-duty service members who received an mTBI diagnosis in 2012, the locations of their diagnoses and next health care visits, the types of care they received in the six months following their mTBI diagnosis, co-occurring conditions, and the duration of their treatment. While the majority of service members with mTBI recover quickly, the study further examined a subset of service members with mTBI who received care for longer than three months following their diagnosis. Diagnosing and treating mTBI can be especially challenging because of variations in symptoms and other factors. The research revealed inconsistencies in the diagnostic coding, as well as areas for improvement in coordinating care across providers and care settings. The results and recommendations provide a foundation to guide future clinical studies to improve the quality of care and subsequent outcomes for service members diagnosed with mTBI.

The national response for preventing healthcare-associated infections: research and adoption of prevention practices.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) have long been the subject of research and prevention practice. When findings show potential to significantly impact outcomes, clinicians, policymakers, safety experts, and stakeholders seek to bridge the gap between research and practice by identifying mechanisms and assigning responsibility for translating research to practice. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes progress and challenges in HAI research and prevention practices, as explained through an examination of Health and Human Services (HHS) Action Plan's goals, inputs, and implementation in each area. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used the Context-Input-Process-Product evaluation model, together with an HAI prevention system framework, to assess the transformative processes associated with HAI research and adoption of prevention practices. RESULTS: Since the introduction of the Action Plan, HHS has made substantial progress in prioritizing research projects, translating findings from those projects into practice, and designing and implementing research projects in multisite practice settings. Research has emphasized the basic science and epidemiology of HAIs, the identification of gaps in research, and implementation science. The basic, epidemiological, and implementation science communities have joined forces to better define mechanisms and responsibilities for translating HAI research into practice. Challenges include the ongoing need for better evidence about intervention effectiveness, the growing implementation burden on healthcare providers and organizations, and challenges implementing certain practices. CONCLUSIONS: Although these HAI research and prevention practice activities are complex spanning multiple system functions and properties, HHS is making progress so that the right methods for addressing complex HAI problems at the interface of patient safety and clinical practice can emerge.

The current state of quality of care measurement in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The quality of health care in prisons is lacking in many states. In particular, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is in the midst of an extreme legal remedy to address problems related to access to and quality of care; it now operates under the direction of a federally appointed receiver for medical care. To understand the current state of access and quality measurement and to assess strengths and weaknesses of current activities, the RAND Corporation conducted a series of interviews and site visits in the CDCR and related offices as well as document reviews (December 2008 to February 2009). Findings supported RAND's larger project goals to identify measures for use in a sustainable quality measurement system.

A review of quality measures used by state and federal prisons.

In response to deficiencies in the delivery of health care in prisons, a number of state correctional systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have established quality of care monitoring systems. In 2009, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the federal receiver overseeing the system asked the RAND Corporation to identify existing indicators of quality performance and to recommend a set of indicators applicable to the prison population. An environmental scan of quality measures being used by other state correctional systems and the BOP found substantial variation in the number and type of measures being used and the underlying data systems used to construct measures. Explicit quality measures were being used, as were measures of disease prevalence and standards.

Selecting performance indicators for prison health care.

Improving prison health care requires a robust measurement dashboard that addresses multiple domains of care. We sought to identify tested indicators of clinical quality and access that prison health managers could use to ascertain gaps in performance and guide quality improvement. We used the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi method to select the best indicators for correctional health. An expert panel rated 111 indicators on validity and feasibility. They voted to retain 79 indicators in areas such as access, cardiac conditions, geriatrics, infectious diseases, medication monitoring, metabolic diseases, obstetrics/gynecology, screening/prevention, psychiatric disorders/substance abuse, pulmonary conditions, and urgent conditions. Prison health institutions, like all other large health institutions, need robust measurement systems. The indicators presented here provide a basic library for prison health managers developing such systems.

RAND/UCLA Quality-of-Care Measures for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Tools for Assessing Quality of Care and Appropriateness of Surgery.

Claims relating to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) are common in workers' compensation systems. Given that the human and economic costs related to CTS are considerable, healthcare organizations must be able to offer high-quality care to people affected by this condition. The study on which this article is based is a step toward improving care for CTS. It has produced two unique tools for institutions to use, one for assessing the quality of care received by a population of patients who have or may have CTS, and the other for identifying the appropriateness of surgery for individual patients. Tools that assist in measuring quality of care are fundamental to efforts to improve healthcare quality. Tools that assess the appropriateness of surgery ensure that people who need surgery receive it and, conversely, that people are not subjected to inappropriate operations. Applied in this way, these two tools are likely to improve clinical circumstances and economic outcomes for people with CTS. Together, they can be useful to provider organizations, medical groups, medical certification boards, and other associated decisionmakers attempting to assess, monitor, and provide appropriate care for people with CTS.

Assessment of contributions to patient safety knowledge by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded patient safety projects.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the activities of projects funded in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)'s patient safety portfolio and assess their aggregate potential to contribute to knowledge development. DATA SOURCES: Information abstracted from proposals for projects funded in AHRQ's patient safety portfolio, information on safety practices from the AHRQ Evidence Report on Patient Safety Practices, and products produced by the projects. STUDY DESIGN: This represented one part of the process evaluation conducted as part of a longitudinal evaluation based on the Context­Input­Process­Product model. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The 234 projects funded through AHRQ's patient safety portfolio examined a wide variety of patient safety issues and extended their work beyond the hospital setting to less studied parts of the health care system. Many of the projects implemented and tested practices for which the patient safety evidence report identified a need for additional evidence. The funded projects also generated a substantial body of new patient safety knowledge through a growing number of journal articles and other products. CONCLUSIONS: The projects funded in AHRQ's patient safety portfolio have the potential to make substantial contributions to the knowledge base on patient safety. The full value of this new knowledge remains to be confirmed through the synthesis of results

Understanding the reporting practices of CAHPS sponsors.

This article examines the reporting of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPSO) consumer experience data by sponsors, those that fund data collection and decide how information is summarized and disseminated. We found that sponsors typically publicly reported comparative data to consumers, employers, and/or purchasers. They presented health plan-level data in print and online at least annually, usually in combination with non-CAHPS information. Many provided trend data, comparisons to individual plans, and summary scores. Most shared information consistent with known successful reporting practices. Areas meriting attention include: tailoring reports to specific audiences, assessing literacy, planning dissemination, educating vendors, and evaluating products and programs.

Quality of care for hypertension in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite heavy recent emphasis on blood pressure (BP) control, many patients fail to meet widely accepted goals. While access and adherence to therapy certainly play a role, another potential explanation is poor quality of essential care processes (QC). Yet little is known about the relationship between QC and BP control. METHODS: We assessed QC in 12 U.S. communities by reviewing the medical records of a randomly selected group of patients for the two years preceding our study. We included patients with either a diagnosis of hypertension or two visits with BPs of >or=140/90 in their medical records. We used 28 process indicators based on explicit evidence to assess QC. The indicators covered a broad spectrum of care and were developed through a modified Delphi method. We considered patients who received all indicated care to have optimal QC. We defined control of hypertension as BP < 140/90 in the most recent reading. RESULTS: Of 1,953 hypertensive patients, only 57% received optimal care and 42% had controlled hypertension. Patients who had received optimal care were more likely to have their BP under control at the end of the study (45% vs. 35%, p = .0006). Patients were more likely to receive optimal care if they were over age 50 (76% vs. 63%, p < .0001), had diabetes (77% vs. 71%, p = .0038), coronary artery disease (87% vs. 69%, p < .0001), or hyperlipidemia (80% vs. 68%, p < .0001), and did not smoke (73% vs. 66%, p = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Higher QC for hypertensive patients is associated with better BP control. Younger patients without cardiac risk factors are at greatest risk for poor care. Quality measurement systems like the one presented in this study can guide future quality improvement efforts.