Evaluating the Effectiveness of Concurrent Review: Does It Improve Stroke Measure Results?

BACKGROUND: Concurrent review is a quality improvement strategy in which patients are tracked from admission to discharge, and messages are communicated to the responsible physician when quality stroke measures have not been met. There is little research regarding interventions that might influence clinical practice patterns and improvement in compliance with core quality measures. This study sought to evaluate whether concurrent review implementation was associated with change in performance on stroke measure outcome data. METHODS: Randomly selected charts from 2 hospitals (A and B) during 3 time periods were reviewed. In period 1, neither hospital had a process for concurrent review. In period 2, hospital A, where concurrent review was implemented, was compared with hospital B without this process. In period 3, both hospitals had the process of concurrent review. Information on baseline demographics, insurance status, and length of stay was collected, as well as stroke performance measures. RESULTS: A total of 620 medical records were reviewed during the 3 time periods. Although the number of beds and annual stroke volume were higher at hospital B, patient characteristics were similar. During period 2, when hospital A implemented concurrent review and hospital B had not, a statistically significant higher compliance with performance in 7 stroke measures occurred in hospital A than in hospital B. In period 3, when both hospitals utilized concurrent review, no statistical significant differences occurred in 7 of the 10 stroke measures. CONCLUSION: Concurrent review is a quality improvement intervention that increases performance with stroke performance measures.

[Appropriateness of hospitalization in a ward of internal medicine--using the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol]. / Adequação do internamento num serviço de medicina interna. Utilizando o Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) is an instrument to study the appropriate use of hospital beds based in objective criteria that classify a hospital admission as appropriate or inappropriate. OBJECT: Evaluate the appropriateness of hospital admissions and stays of the patients of our Internal Medicine Department using the concurrent version of AEP. METHOD: Transversal study where was evaluated the clinical record of the patients admitted to our Department of Internal Medicine on March 13th of 2003, excluding all these who were admitted the day of the study. We analyzed demographic and clinic parameters and the appropriateness of hospital admission and stay using the AEP. RESULTS: 22 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 54.5% of male gender with a average age of 70.7 years. All the admissions were considered appropriate. The most common criteria was the need of intravenous therapy (100%), followed by the sudden lost of corporal mobility (12.3%). 27.3% of stays were considered inappropriate on the day of the study. The most common criteria of appropriateness was the need of intravenous therapy (93.7%). The most usual reason of inappropriate stay was the existence of planned discharge, but without the order written down in the clinical file (66.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The AEP allows an efficient evaluation of the appropriateness of the hospital admissions and stays in a Health Unit, being used for a better utilization of resources. In our department all admissions were justified and about a quarter of stays were considered inappropriate using the AEP.

[Cause of non-pertinent hospital stays: interobserver concordance using the French version of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol]. / Etude de la concordance inter-observateurs des raisons de non-pertinence des journées d'hospitalisation identifiée par la version française de l'Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (2e partie).

BACKGROUND: The modified French version of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEPf) has been validated. Inappropriate days according to simple medical and technical criteria are identified with this tool. The aim of this study is to highlight the interest of investigating the reasons for inappropriate days and to assess the inter-observers reliability of the questionnaire developed for this purpose. METHODS: This questionnaire collects on one hand the needs of patients - distinguishing health care and accommodation needs - and on the other hand the reasons for inappropriate hospital days. The data were collected from January to September 1998 in nine voluntary medical and surgical departments. For each day of study randomly selected, each inappropriate hospital day according to AEPf has been included. Data were collected by two health professionals (a nurse and a physician), using a concurrent design. RESULTS: The reliability of the over-ride option of the appropriateness assessment of the 345 hospital days was good (overall Kappa coefficient: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.55-0.78). The comparison of the two expert judgments on health care needs fulfilled during the hospital day was acceptable; the Kappa coefficient was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.72). The reliability of expert assessment on patient accommodation needs (home, housing facilities or hospital) was good (Kappa coefficient: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.60-0.75). When hospital was not the accommodation the most adapted for patient, the reliability of the reasons for inappropriate days was high (Kappa coefficient: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.80). Kappa coefficients were different between hospitals, indicating a center effect. CONCLUSION: This instrument has been found to be reliable and should be used in complement of the first part of the AEPf which assess the prevalence of inappropriate days. It might help to detect dysfunctions within or outside the hospital and thus be used for evaluation or planning of health care.

The impact of utilization management on readmissions among patients with cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if prospective utilization reviews that lead to reduced hospital length of stay (LOS) relative to days requested by an attending physician affect the likelihood of readmission for privately insured patients with cardiovascular disease. DATA SOURCES: Data obtained from a private insurance company on utilization management decisions from 1989 through 1993. During this five-year period, 39,117 inpatient reviews were conducted, 4,326 (11.1 percent) on patients with cardiovascular disease. We selected for analysis all 4,326 reviews performed on patients with cardiovascular disease. STUDY DESIGN: We used proportional hazard analysis (Cox regression) to investigate the relationship between LOS reductions relative to days requested by a patient's attending physician and the likelihood of readmission within 60 days of discharge. Separate analyses were performed for medical and procedural admissions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were 2,813 requests for medical admission, and 1,513 requests for procedural admission. Requests for admission were rarely denied. Length of stay was reduced relative to that requested by the treating physician for 17 percent and 19 percent of medical and procedural admissions, respectively. Cumulative 60-day readmission rates were 9.5 percent for medical admissions and 12.3 percent for procedural admissions. We found no relationship between LOS reduction and the likelihood of readmission for medical admissions. However, patients admitted for procedures who had their length of stay reduced by two or more days were 2.6 times as likely to be readmitted within 60 days as those who had no reduction in their length of stay (95% CI: 1.3-5.1; p < .005). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization management (UM) rarely denies requests for inpatient treatment of cardiovascular disease. The association between LOS reduction and the likelihood of readmission for patients admitted for cardiovascular procedures raises concern that UM may adversely affect clinical outcome for some patients. Further research is needed to definitively elucidate any relationship that might exist between utilization review decisions and quality of care.

Retrospective versus concurrent review on the quality of care of pediatric trauma patients.

To compare and contrast retrospective versus concurrent quality of care review processes in a Level I Trauma Center, we conducted a retrospective chart review of all pediatric trauma admissions in 1990 (n = 113) and compared it to the concurrent trauma quality assurance program for the same time period. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the patients reviewed in the retrospective study were identified by filters and reviewed through the concurrent process. In both the retrospective and concurrent review process problems in medical care problems, documentation, social and preventive elements of the case, and overall assessment of the patients' care were described. Overall, we found less than 50% agreement between the two reviews. The retrospective review identified medical care issues in 64% of cases, compared with a 44% error rate noted in the concurrent review (P < 0.07). Reviewers were more likely to note the absence of appropriate documentation, and overall assessment of the patients' care in the retrospective process (P < 0.0001). The retrospective review also highlighted issues related to the prevention of the injury and the patients' social situation, which were not considered by the concurrent review. Overall, we found the concurrent review appropriate for case by case medical management, while the retrospective review was relevant to a systems approach to the care of the injured child. To obtain a complete picture of the care of injured children, we recommend 1) a portion of charts be reviewed retrospectively in addition to ongoing concurrent review; or 2) the concurrent review add filters that are specific to pediatric issues and overall system issues.

Using quality service analysts to streamline record reviews.

By using registered nurse quality service analysts (RN-QSAs), the United States Air Force Medical Center in Wiesbaden, Germany, which closed in 1993, reduced physician reviews of medical records in 1991-1992 to only the records that did not meet the preestablished screening criteria. The authors relate how the screening of records by RN-QSAs increased the number of records reviewed, reduced the number of people reviewing records, established the quality services department as a repository of patient care information, and markedly improved the quantity, quality, and reproducibility of patient care reviews.

Comparing low-severity hospital admissions in IPA HMOs and indemnity-type programs.

This study compares the proportion of low-severity hospital patients in independent practice association (IPA) HMOs and indemnity-type programs. The length of stay of such low-severity patients is also studied. Admissions of IPA patients under age 65 to ten hospitals are compared with admissions to the same hospital of patients covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans or commercial insurance programs. Admissions to the adult medical service for the eight most frequently occurring DRGs with 5 percent or more patients in the low-severity category are included. A Logit model of the probability of low-severity admission controlling for age, sex, DRG, and hospital shows no significant IPA effect. However, a multiple regression model shows that the IPAs have significantly lower average length of stay for these low-severity patients.

New methods for evaluating utilization management programs.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc (BCBS), has developed two new methods for measuring the effect of utilization management (UM) in reducing unnecessary hospital use. The "program component" method measures the separate effect of preadmission review, concurrent review, and discharge planning. The "savable days" method produces a composite measure of the effectiveness of the program as a whole. The use of these two methods is illustrated with five years of utilization review data from the BCBS nongroup insurance product. The results can be used by operations managers and policymakers to measure the performance of individual UM components and the program as a whole, to establish goals and monitor program performance, to modify the program in response to changing utilization patterns, to assist in developing premiums, to establish risk-sharing agreements with employers or providers, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program for use in marketing.

A psychodynamic perspective on the clinical impact of insurance review.

The rise of managed care and concurrent utilization review has had a profound impact on the practice of inpatient psychiatry. Little has been written, however, on the clinical impact of the review process itself. The actions of insurance reviewers often result in their being incorporated into the psychopathology of individual patients and into the dynamics of families and institutional settings. The authors apply psychodynamic understanding to a series of case examples to illustrate how concurrent review may promote splitting, impede the patient's ability to separate from the hospital, and paradoxically reinforce the patient's illness. They also explore a number of typical responses of treatment staff and families to the review process. A case vignette demonstrating a sincere effort at mutual collaboration between payers and providers is also presented. This spirit of compromise is proposed as the solution that best serves patient care.

Many diagnostic tests may be unnecessary.

Hospital installs system for concurrent review of diagnostic test ordering in which judgment criteria are set in consensus fashion by physicians.