The quality of care provided to patients with varices in the department of Veterans Affairs.

OBJECTIVES: Practice guidelines define the criteria and standards of care in patients with cirrhosis and varices. However, the extent to which the patients receive recommended care is largely unknown. We evaluated the quality of varices related care and factors associated with receipt of such care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 550 patients with cirrhosis who sought care at three VA facilities between 2000 and 2007. Using administrative and clinical data, we assessed quality of varices care as measured by eight explicit Delphi panel-derived quality indicators. We also conducted a structured implicit review of patients' medical records to explore the role of patients' refusal, receipt of care outside the VA, or justifiable exclusions to certain care processes as explanations for non-adherence to the quality indicators. RESULTS: Quality scores (max. 100%) varied across individual indicators, ranging from 24.3% for upper endoscopy for varices screening to 72.4% for secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Justifiable exclusions to indicated care documented in charts were common for primary prophylaxis in patients with varices; receipt of endoscopy; and endoscopic treatment in patients with active bleeding. In contrast, significant shortfalls remained in the receipt of screening endoscopy, use of beta-blockers (in the absence of varices), and use of somatostatin analogs, antibiotics, and secondary prophylaxis in patients with variceal bleeding. Younger patients (<60 vs. >60 year, odds ratio (OR)=1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.68), those who saw a gastroenterologist (OR=1.55, 95% CI=1.09-2.21), or those who were seen in the facility with academic affiliation (OR=1.26, 95% CI=1.01-1.58) received higher quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care quality, measured according to whether patients received recommended varices-related care, was suboptimal in this health-care setting. Care that included gastroenterologists was associated with high quality.

The quality of care provided to patients with cirrhosis and ascites in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Ascites are the most common complication of cirrhosis. Evidence-based guidelines define the criteria and standards of care for patients with cirrhosis and ascites. However, little is known about the extent to which patients with ascites meet these standards. METHODS: We evaluated the quality of ascites care, measured by 8 explicit Delphi panel-derived quality indicators, in 774 patients with cirrhosis and ascites, seen at 3 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers between 2000 and 2007. We also conducted a structured implicit review of patients' medical charts to determine whether patient refusal, outside care, or other justifiable exceptions to care processes account for nonadherence to the quality indicators. RESULTS: Quality scores (maximum 100%) varied among individual indicators, ranging from 30% for secondary prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, to 90% for assays for cell number and type in the paracentesis fluid. In general, care targeted at treatment was more likely to meet standards than preventive care. Only 33.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-32.9%) of patients received all recommended care. Patients with no comorbidity (Deyo index 0 vs >3; odds ratio = 2.21; 95% CI: 1.43-3.43), who saw a gastroenterologist (odds ratio = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.74), or were seen in a facility with academic affiliation (odds ratio = 1.73; 95% CI: 1.29-2.35) received higher-quality care. Justifiable exceptions to indicated care, documented in charts, were common for patients with paracentesis after diagnosis with ascites, patients that received antibiotics for gastrointestinal bleeding, and patients that required diuretics. However, most patients did not have an explanation documented for nonadherence to recommended care. CONCLUSIONS: Health care quality, measured by whether patients received recommended services, was suboptimal for patients with cirrhosis-related ascites. Care that included gastroenterologists was associated with high quality. However, for some of the quality indicators, too many denominator exceptions existed to allow for accurate automated measurement.