Developing and Testing a Chart Abstraction Tool for ICU Quality Measurement.

Quality measures are increasingly used to measure the performance of providers, hospitals, and health care systems. Intensive care units (ICUs) are an important clinical area in hospitals, given that they generate high costs and present high risks to patients. Yet, currently, few valid and clinically significant ICU-specific outcome measures are reported nationally. This study reports on the creation and evaluation of new abstraction tools that evaluate ICU patients for the following clinically important outcomes: central line-associated bloodstream infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, gastrointestinal bleed, and pressure ulcer. To allow ICUs and institutions to compare their outcomes, the tools include risk-adjustment variables that can be abstracted from the chart.

Identifying meaningful outcome measures for the intensive care unit.

Despite important progress in measuring the safety of health care delivery in a variety of health care settings, a comprehensive set of metrics for benchmarking is still lacking, especially for patient outcomes. Even in high-risk settings where similar procedures are performed daily, such as hospital intensive care units (ICUs), these measures largely do not exist. Yet we cannot compare safety or quality across institutions or regions, nor can we track whether safety is improving over time. To a large extent, ICU outcome measures deemed valid, important, and preventable by clinicians are unavailable, and abstracting clinical data from the medical record is excessively burdensome. Even if a set of outcomes garnered consensus, ensuring adequate risk adjustment to facilitate fair comparisons across institutions presents another challenge. This study reports on a consensus process to build 5 outcome measures for broad use to evaluate the quality of ICU care and inform quality improvement efforts.

Electronic health records in small physician practices: availability, use, and perceived benefits.

OBJECTIVE: To examine variation in the adoption of electronic health record (EHR) functionalities and their use patterns, barriers to adoption, and perceived benefits by physician practice size. DESIGN: Mailed survey of a nationally representative random sample of practicing physicians identified from the Physician Masterfile of the American Medical Association. Measurements We measured, stratified by practice size: (1) availability of EHR functionalities, (2) functionality use, (3) barriers to the adoption and use of EHR, and (4) impact of the EHR on the practice and quality of patient care. RESULTS: With a response rate of 62%, we found that < 2% of physicians in solo or two-physician (small) practices reported a fully functional EHR and 5% reported a basic EHR compared with 13% of physicians from 11+ group (largest group) practices with a fully functional system and 26% with a basic system. Between groups, a 21-46% difference in specific functionalities available was reported. Among adopters there were moderate to large differences in the use of the EHR systems. Financial barriers were more likely to be reported by smaller practices, along with concerns about future obsolescence. These differences were sizable (13-16%) and statistically significant (p < 0.001). All adopters reported similar benefits. Limitations Although we have adjusted for response bias, influences may still exist. CONCLUSION: Our study found that physicians in small practices have lower levels of EHR adoption and that these providers were less likely to use these systems. Ensuring that unique barriers are addressed will be critical to the widespread meaningful use of EHR systems among small practices.

Physician professionalism and changes in physician-industry relationships from 2004 to 2009.

BACKGROUND: One tenet of medical professionalism is managing conflicts of interest related to physician-industry relationships (PIRs). Since 2004 much has been done at the institutional, state, and national levels to limit PIRs. This study estimates the nature, extent, consequences, and changes in PIRs nationally. METHODS: We performed a national survey of a stratified random sample of 2938 primary care physicians (internal medicine, family practice, and pediatrics) and specialists (cardiology, general surgery, psychiatry, and anesthesiology). A total of 1891 physicians completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 64.4%. The main outcome measure was prevalence of several types of PIRs and comparison with PIRs in 2004. RESULTS: Overall, 83.8% of all respondents reported some type of relationship with industry during the previous year. Approximately two-thirds (63.8%) received drug samples, 70.6% food and beverages, 18.3% reimbursements, and 14.1% payments for professional services. Since 2004 the percentage of each of these benefits has decreased significantly. Higher rates of PIRs are significantly and inversely associated with low levels of Medicare spending. CONCLUSION: Among a random sample of physicians, the prevalence of self-reported PIRs in 2009 was 83.8%, which was lower than in 2004.

Evidence of an emerging digital divide among hospitals that care for the poor.

Some hospitals that disproportionately care for poor patients are falling behind in adopting electronic health records (EHRs). Data from a national survey indicate early evidence of an emerging digital divide: U.S. hospitals that provide care to large numbers of poor patients also had minimal use of EHRs. These same hospitals lagged others in quality performance as well, but those with EHR systems seemed to have eliminated the quality gap. These findings suggest that adopting EHRs should be a major policy goal of health reform measures targeting hospitals that serve large populations of poor patients.