RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of varying measurement period on the calculation of electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQMs). BACKGROUND: eCQMs have increased in importance in value-based programs, but accurate and timely measurement has been slow. This has required flexibility in key measure characteristics, including measurement period, the timeframe the measurement covers. The effects of variable measurement periods on accuracy and variability are not clear. METHODS: 209 practices were asked to extract and submit four eCQMs from their Electronic Health Records on a quarterly basis using a 12-month measurement period. Quarterly submissions were collected via REDCap. The measurement periods of the survey data were categorized into non-standard (3, 6, 9 months and other) and standard periods (12 months). For comparison, patient-level data from three clinics were collected and calculated in an eCQM registry to measure the impact of varying measurement periods. We assessed the central tendency, shape of the distributions, and variability across the four measures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to analyze the differences among standard and non-standard measurement period means, and variation among these groups. RESULTS: Of 209 practices, 191 (91 percent) submitted data over three quarters. Of the 546 total submissions, 173 had non-standard measurement periods. Differences between measures with standard versus non-standard periods ranged from -3.3 percent to 14.2 percent between clinics (p < .05 for 3 of 4), using the patient-level data yielded deltas of -1.6 percent to 0.6 percent when comparing non-standard and standard periods. CONCLUSION: Variations in measurement periods were associated with variation in performance between clinics for 3 of the 4 eCQMs, but did not have significant differences when calculated within clinics. Variations from standard measurement periods may reflect poor data quality and accuracy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Previous epidemiologic studies utilizing birth records have shown heterogeneous associations between air pollution exposure during pregnancy and the risk of preterm birth (PTB, gestational age <37 weeks). Uncertainty in gestational age at birth may contribute to this heterogeneity. METHODS: We first examined disagreement between clinical and last menstrual period-based (LMP) determination of PTB from individual-level birth certificate data for the 20-county Atlanta metropolitan area during 2002 to 2006. We then estimated associations between five trimester-averaged pollutant exposures and PTB, defined using various methods based on the clinical or LMP gestational age. Finally, using a multiple imputation approach, we incorporated uncertainty in gestational age to quantify the impact of this variability on associations between pollutant exposures and PTB. RESULTS: Odds ratios (OR) were most elevated when a more stringent definition of PTB was used. For example, defining PTB only when LMP and clinical diagnoses agree yielded an OR of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04, 1.14) per interquartile range increase in first trimester carbon monoxide exposure versus an OR of 1.04 (95% CI = 1.01, 1.08) when PTB was defined as either an LMP or clinical diagnosis. Accounting for outcome uncertainty resulted in wider CIs-between 7.4% and 43.8% wider than those assuming the PTB outcome is without error. CONCLUSIONS: Despite discrepancies in PTB derived using either the clinical or LMP gestational age estimates, our analyses demonstrated robust positive associations between PTB and ambient air pollution exposures even when gestational age uncertainty is present.
