Patient-reported outcomes of ayurveda consultation in relation to clinical practice data.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice characteristics and patient-reported outcomes for Ayurveda have not been adequately studied. METHODS: From January 2 thru February 28, 2022, all clients first seen during the 9-year period ending December 31, 2021, were solicited to respond to a web-based 34-item questionnaire containing 5 items targeting their general experience, 7 focusing on specific results, and 22 examining the implementation and impact of common Ayurvedic recommendations. These data were combined with practice data to develop linear regression models for the main outcome variables to assess improvement and the drivers of change. RESULTS: 170 responses were received from 252 eligible clients: an overall response rate of 67%. Test-retest data for 57 respondents gave a reliability coefficient of 0.83 [0.69-0.91]. The outcomes of consultation were independent of the mode of interaction (in-person vs. telehealth) and whether pulse diagnosis information was available. 85% were at least Satisfied with their overall consultation experience. The mean difference in health from before consultation to the survey was 1.2 [1.0-1.4] on a 7-point scale. 61% reported Much to Exceptional benefit. On average, 63% rated themselves as at least Somewhat Better in terms of physical well-being, emotional well-being, sleep, digestion, bowel function, fitness and energy. These findings were buttressed by clinically significant changes on 4 clinical assessment questionnaires among 60 clients. Engaging in follow-up and adopting recommendations were associated with better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation with a practitioner of Ayurveda may provide substantial probability of durable holistic health benefit and improvement in chronic conditions with minimal risk of harm.

Development of a reliable Dosha self-assessment questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: The Ayurvedic theory of Tri-Dosha offers a unique framework for understanding human differences in health and disease. The Doshas could be readily applied in clinical studies to control for such differences the same way sex, age, height and weight are routinely used except that clinical evaluation is required and methods vary. No open-source questionnaire has been shown to be reliable for self-assessment. Therefore, we undertook this study to develop a reliable Dosha self-assessment questionnaire with characteristics suitable for use in clinical research. METHODS: A review of published questionnaires and translations of classic Ayurvedic texts along with an analysis of item-total correlations and ANOVAs by Dosha for 735 responses to a 37-item ipsative questionnaire from an Ayurveda products company served as the basis for generating 108 Dosha-specific test items featuring a 7-point Likert scale. We used item-total and inter-item correlations from a convenience sample of 176 individuals to identify the best performing items. We then solicited repeat responses to the resultant 39-item questionnaire (13 for each Dosha) from these and other website visitors and calculated test-retest reliability as the intraclass correlation coefficient for absolute agreement (ICC 2,1) for each Dosha. RESULTS: The final questionnaire gives normally distributed results. Among 76 self-selected adults, the test-retest reliabilities for Vata, Pitta and Kapha Dosha scores are all above 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that it is possible to quantify the three Doshas with adequate reliability for most clinical studies.

In pursuit of quality and safety: an 8-year study of clinical peer review best practices in US hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Gather normative data on the goals of clinical peer review; refine a best-practice model and related self-assessment inventory; identify the interval progress towards best-practice adoption. DESIGN: Online survey (2015-16) of a cohort of 457 programs first studied by volunteer sampling in either 2007 or 2009 on 40 items assessing the degree of conformance to a validated quality improvement (QI) model and addressing program goals, structure, process, governance, and impact on quality and safety. SETTING: Acute care hospitals of all sizes in the USA. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Physicians and hospital leaders or hospital staff with intimate program knowledge. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjectively-rated program impact on quality and safety; QI model score. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy responses (59% response rate) showed that clinical peer review most commonly aims to improve quality and safety. From 2007 to 2015, the median [inter-quartile range, IQR] annual rate of major program change was 20% [11-24%]. Mean [confidence interval, CI] QI model scores increased 5.6 [2.9-8.3] points from 46.2 at study entry. Only 35% scored at least 60 of 80 possible points-'C' level progress in adopting the QI model. The analysis supports expansion of the QI model and an associated self-assessment inventory to include 20 items on a 100-point scale for which a 10-point increase predicts a one level improvement in quality impact with an odds ratio [CI] of 2.5 [2.2-3.0]. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital and physician leaders could potentially accelerate progress in quality and safety by revisiting their clinical peer review practices in light of the evidence-based QI model.

An Assessment of the Impact of Just Culture on Quality and Safety in US Hospitals.

In pursuit of high reliability, numerous organizations have promoted Just Culture, but its impact has never been assessed. This report combines data from a longitudinal survey-based study of clinical peer review practices in a cohort of 457 acute care hospitals with 43 measures from the Hospital Compare database and interprets them in relation to the long-term trends of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) data on the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture. In all, 211 of 270 respondents (79%) indicated that their hospital has adopted Just Culture. More than half believe that it has had a positive impact. Just Culture implementation and its degree of impact are associated with somewhat better peer review process, but not with objective measures of hospital performance. Non-Punitive Response to Error has consistently been the lowest scoring category (45% positive) in the AHRQ database. Widespread adoption of Just Culture has not reduced reluctance to report or the culture of blame it targets.

An Organizational Learning Framework for Patient Safety.

Despite concerted effort to improve quality and safety, high reliability remains a distant goal. Although this likely reflects the challenge of organizational change, persistent controversy over basic issues suggests that weaknesses in conceptual models may contribute. The essence of operational improvement is organizational learning. This article presents a framework for identifying leverage points for improvement based on organizational learning theory and applies it to an analysis of current practice and controversy. Organizations learn from others, from defects, from measurement, and from mindfulness. These learning modes correspond with contemporary themes of collaboration, no blame for human error, accountability for performance, and managing the unexpected. The collaborative model has dominated improvement efforts. Greater attention to the underdeveloped modes of organizational learning may foster more rapid progress in patient safety by increasing organizational capabilities, strengthening a culture of safety, and fixing more of the process problems that contribute to patient harm.

A longitudinal study of clinical peer review's impact on quality and safety in U.S. hospitals.

Clinical peer review is the dominant method of event analysis in U.S. hospitals. It is pivotal to medical staff efforts to improve quality and safety, yet the quality assurance process model that has prevailed for the past 30 years evokes fear and is fundamentally antithetical to a culture of safety. Two prior national studies characterized a quality improvement model that corrects this dysfunction but failed to demonstrate progress toward its adoption despite a high rate of program change between 2007 and 2009. This study's online survey of 470 organizations participating in either of the prior studies further assessed relationships between clinical peer review program factors, including the degree of conformance to the quality improvement model (the QI model score), and subjectively measured program impact variables. Among the 300 hospitals (64%) that responded, the median QI model score was only 60 on a 100-point scale. Scores increased somewhat for the 2007 cohort (mean pair-wise difference of 5.9 [2-10]), but not for the 2009 cohort. The QI model is expanded as the result of the finding that self-reporting of adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions--an essential practice in high-reliability organizations--is no longer rare in hospitals. Self-reporting and the quality of case review are additional multivariate predictors of the perceived ongoing impact of clinical peer review on quality and safety, medical staff perceptions of the program, and medical staff engagement in quality and safety initiatives. Hospital leaders and trustees who seek to improve patient outcomes should facilitate the adoption of this best practice model for clinical peer review.

Minimizing bias in clinical peer review.

The chief sources of bias in peer review include the clinical outcome and the reviewer. But there are ways to mitigate any bias.

The objective impact of clinical peer review on hospital quality and safety.

Despite its importance, the objective impact of clinical peer review on the quality and safety of care has not been studied. Data from 296 acute care hospitals show that peer review program and related organizational factors can explain up to 18% of the variation in standardized measures of quality and patient safety. The majority of programs rely on an outmoded and dysfunctional process model. Adoption of best practices informed by the continuing study of peer review program effectiveness has the potential to significantly improve patient outcomes.

Clinical peer review program self-evaluation for US hospitals.

Prior research has shown wide variation in clinical peer review program structure, process, governance, and perceived effectiveness. This study sought to validate the utility of a Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation Tool as a potential guide to physician and hospital leaders seeking greater program value. Data from 330 hospitals show that the total score from the self-evaluation tool is strongly associated with perceived quality impact. Organizational culture also plays a significant role. When controlling for these factors, there was no evidence of benefit from a multispecialty review process. Physicians do not generally use reliable methods to measure clinical performance. A high rate of change since 2007 has not produced much improvement. The Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation Tool reliably differentiates hospitals along a continuum of perceived program performance. The full potential of peer review as a process to improve the quality and safety of care has yet to be realized.