Real-World Considerations for Implementing Pediatric Quality Measures: Insights From Key Stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: Since its inception, the Pediatric Quality Measures Program has focused on the development and implementation of new and innovative pediatric quality measures (PQM) for both public and private use. Building the evidence base related to measure usability and feasibility is central to increasing measure uptake and, thereby, to increased performance monitoring and quality improvement (QI) for children in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. This paper describes key stakeholder insights focused on measure implementation and increasing the uptake of PQM. METHODS: The PQMP Learning Collaborative conducted semistructured interviews with 9 key informants (KIs) representing states, health plans, and other potential end users of the measures. The interviews focused on gaining KIs' perspectives on 6 research questions focused on assessing the feasibility and usability of PQM and strengthening the connection between measurement and improvement. RESULTS: Our synthesis identified insights that highlight facilitators and barriers from the KIs' experience and the strategies they employ when using measures to drive improvement "on-the-ground." Importantly, while the KIs agreed on how essential the research questions are to measure implementation and uptake, they uniformly acknowledged the complexity of the issues raised and pinpointed multiple unresolved issues. DISCUSSION: The views expressed by these stakeholders point to several key issues - including incorporation of socio-economic status into quality measures and performance comparisons, use of benchmark data, and criteria for QI versus accountability - for developing a real-world research agenda to guide the future direction of quality measurement and implementation to improve children's health care.

Advancing health equity through organizational change: Perspectives from health care leaders.

BACKGROUND: Published literature on health care administration, management, and leadership and its impacts on health systems' programs to address health care inequities is limited, as is information about how organizations integrate health equity in their cultures, missions, and strategic plans. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to identify the key components necessary for health systems to implement systematic organizational change to promote health equity and to describe approaches organizations have implemented. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We conducted an environmental scan to identify central principles for implementing lasting change in health systems and experts working to advance health equity through organizational change. We interviewed 19 experts in health equity and hospital executives in 2020. Using iterative thematic analysis, we identified common themes. RESULTS: Consistent with the literature on organizational change, interviewees described a variety of systematic approaches to change, all of which involve the following core components: (a) committed and engaged leadership; (b) integrated organizational structure; (c) commitment to quality improvement and patient safety; (d) ongoing training and education; (e) effective data collection and analytics; and (f) stakeholder communication, engagement, and collaboration. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to advancing health equity. Decisions about which components require the most attention vary depending on an organization's internal and external environment. Understanding those environments and identifying which levers will be most effective are essential. As provider organizations strive to develop more strategic and systematic approaches to addressing disparities, long-term vision and commitment are necessary to achieve sustainable organizational change.

Implementation of Evidence-Based Recommendations for Preventive Services in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States. To date, there has been scant research on how VHA adopts clinical preventive services guidelines and how U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations factor into the process. METHODS: Researchers conducted semistructured interviews with eight VHA leaders to examine how they adopt, disseminate, and measure adherence to recommendations. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and aggregated into a database to enable sorting and synthesis. Themes were identified across the key informant interviews. RESULTS: The development of VHA clinical prevention guidelines is coordinated by the National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. A VHA Advisory Committee discusses and votes to approve or disapprove each guideline. Several factors can impact the ability of a veterans affairs medical center to implement a guideline, such as local system capacity and priorities for quality improvement. Methods to promote implementation include electronic reminders, educational events, and a robust performance measurement system. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of evidence-based clinical preventive services is an important part of VHA's effort to provide high-quality care for Veterans. Recent achievements in lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and Hepatitis C screening highlight VHA's successful approach to implementation of preventive services guidance.

Making the Case for Addressing Health Disparities: What Drives Providers and Payers?

Purpose: The creation of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health placed increased emphasis on federal efforts to address health disparities. Although the literature establishes a social justice case for addressing health disparities, there is limited evidence of this case being sufficient for businesses to invest in such initiatives. The purpose of this study was to better understand the "business case" behind an organization's investment in health disparity reduction work. Methods: We conducted six case studies (44 on-site interviews) with diverse private-sector provider and payer organizations. Results: While providers and payers cited business rationales for initiating disparity-focused efforts, their motivations differed. Conclusion: As federal entities address health disparities, and payment models shift from volume to value, engaging private stakeholders with the leverage to move the health disparities needle is of principal importance.

Large Health Systems' Prevention Guideline Implementation: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Health systems now employ more than half of U.S. physicians. They have the potential to affect primary care through decision support and financial incentives around clinical prevention guidelines. The processes by which they respond to and implement clinical guidelines remain largely unexplored. METHODS: In 2015, the research team conducted and analyzed interviews with quality leaders from eight hospital-based systems and one physician organization which together employ >33,000 physicians and serve >15 million patients. Executives explained organizational processes to adapt, adopt, disseminate, and incentivize adherence to preventive services guidelines. RESULTS: Nearly all have a formal process for reviewing and refining guidelines, developing clinician support, and disseminating the approved guidelines. Internal and external factors like organizational structure, patient demographics, and payer contracts affect the review processes and resulting guideline adaptations. Challenges to guideline uptake include competing demands on clinician time and the absence of accurate and timely patient data in accessible and user-friendly formats. Interviewees reported that engaging clinicians in guideline review is critical to successful implementation. Electronic health record reminders represent the primary tool for guideline dissemination and reinforcement. Interviewees reported widespread use of performance monitoring and feedback to clinicians, with varying levels of success. Most organizations use financial incentives tied to performance for some of their clinicians, although details vary widely depending on network structures and contractual arrangements. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems play a critical intermediary role between guideline-developing organizations and practicing clinicians. Strengthening the adoption of guidelines requires attention to many factors beyond care delivery.

The Impact of Nursing Home Pay-for-Performance on Quality and Medicare Spending: Results from the Nursing Home Value-Based Purchasing Demonstration.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the Nursing Home Value-Based Purchasing demonstration on quality of care and Medicare spending. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Administrative and qualitative data from Arizona, New York, and Wisconsin nursing homes over the base-year (2008-2009) and 3-year (2009-2012) demonstration period. STUDY DESIGN: Nursing homes were randomized to the intervention in New York, while the comparison facilities were constructed via propensity score matching in Arizona and Wisconsin. We used a difference-in-difference analysis to compare outcomes across the base-year relative to outcomes in each of the three demonstration years. To provide context and assist with interpretation of results, we also interviewed staff members at participating facilities. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Medicare savings were observed in Arizona in the first year only and Wisconsin for the first 2 years; no savings were observed in New York. The demonstration did not systematically impact any of the quality measures. Discussions with nursing home administrators suggested that facilities made few, if any, changes in response to the demonstration, leading us to conclude that the observed savings likely reflected regression to the mean rather than true savings. CONCLUSION: The Federal nursing home pay-for-performance demonstration had little impact on quality or Medicare spending.

Oncologists' experience in reporting cancer staging and guideline adherence: lessons from the 2006 medicare oncology demonstration.

A report on how accurately physicians used methodology in a nationwide demonstration by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to enhance quality of cancer treatment and care and promote evidence-based practices.

[A concept for the implementation and evaluation of the guideline "Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Germany"]. / Implementierung und Evaluation von Leitlinien auf nationaler Ebene: Entwicklung eines Konzeptes für die Stufe-3-Leitlinie "Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland".

Systematically developed, evidence- and consensus-based guidelines are important tools for improving health care services. The effectiveness of a guideline does not only relate to its methodological quality but also to the implementation strategy used. The following paper describes the systematic development of a strategy for implementing and evaluating the guideline "Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Germany" as part of a national project. A multi-faceted systematic implementation strategy has been developed addressing existing barriers and building on projects that have recently been introduced in Germany to improve the early detection and management of breast cancer. The aim is to induce behavioural changes in women as healthcare recipients and physicians as healthcare providers, both involved in the medical decision-making process within the scope of the guideline. Furthermore, it supports organisational changes to assure compliance with the guideline by means of quality assurance and quality management. To ensure evaluation of the implementation process a set of quality indicators have been identified for the baseline assessment of structures, provider performance and outcomes. Both the effectiveness of the implementation process and the effectiveness of the guideline itself will be measured by using the same set of indicators for reevaluation within a pre-defined time interval of 18 months. The quasi-experimental design of this uncontrolled before and after implementation study outlined in the present paper allows the assessment of clinically relevant changes using quality indicators that measure the effectiveness of the guideline on a national level.