Machine Learning for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of VMAT: Prediction and Classification Accuracy.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of machine learning to predict and classify quality assurance (QA) results for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three hundred three VMAT plans, including 176 gynecologic cancer and 127 head and neck cancer plans, were chosen in this study. Fifty-four complexity metrics were extracted from the QA plans and considered as inputs. Patient-specific QA was performed, and gamma passing rates (GPRs) were used as outputs. One Poisson lasso (PL) regression model was developed, aiming to predict individual GPR, and 1 random forest (RF) classification model was developed to classify QA results as "pass" or "fail." Both technical validation (TV) and clinical validation (CV) were used to evaluate the model reliability. GPR prediction accuracy of PL and classification performance of PL and RF were evaluated. RESULTS: In TV, the mean prediction error of PL was 1.81%, 2.39%, and 4.18% at 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively. No significant differences in prediction errors between TV and CV were observed. In QA results classification, PL had a higher specificity (accurately identifying plans that can pass QA), whereas RF had a higher sensitivity (accurately identifying plans that may fail QA). By using 90% as the action limit at a 3%/2 mm criterion, the specificity of PL and RF was 97.5% and 87.7% in TV and 100% and 71.4% in CV, respectively. The sensitivity of PL and RF was 31.6% and 100% in TV and 33.3% and 100% in CV, respectively. With 100% sensitivity, the QA workload of 81.2% of plans in TV and 62.5% of plans in CV could be reduced by RF. CONCLUSIONS: The PL model could accurately predict GPR for most VMAT plans. The RF model with 100% sensitivity was preferred for QA results classification. Machine learning can be a useful tool to assist VMAT QA and reduce QA workload.

[Structure of pain management facilities in Germany : Classification of medical and psychological pain treatment services-Consensus of the Joint Commission of the Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine]. / Struktur der schmerzmedizinischen Versorgung in Deutschland : Klassifikation schmerzmedizinischer Einrichtungen - Konsens der Gemeinsamen Kommission der Fachgesellschaften und Verbände für Qualität in der Schmerzmedizin.

On behalf of the Medical/Psychological Pain Associations, Pain Patients Alliance and the Professional Association of Pain Physicians and Psychologists, the Joint Commission of Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine, working in close collaboration with the respective presidents, has developed verifiable structural and process-related criteria for the classification of medical and psychological pain treatment facilities in Germany. Based on the established system of graded care in Germany and on existing qualifications, these criteria also argue for the introduction of a basic qualification in pain medicine. In addition to the first-ever comprehensive description of psychological pain facilities, the criteria presented can be used to classify five different levels of pain facilities, from basic pain management facilities, to specialized institutions, to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine. The recommendations offer binding and verifiable criteria for quality assurance in pain medicine and improved pain treatment.

[Text Comprehensibility of Hospital Report Cards]. / Verständlichkeit der Texte von Qualitätsvergleichen zu Krankenhausleistungen.

Objectives: Recently, the number of hospital report cards that compare quality of hospitals and present information from German quality reports has greatly increased. Objectives of this study were to a) identify suitable methods for measuring the readability and comprehensibility of hospital report cards, b) to obtain reliable information on the comprehensibility of texts for laymen, c) to give recommendations for improvements and d) to recommend public health actions. Methods: The readability and comprehensibility of the texts were tested with a) a computer-aided evaluation of formal text characteristics (readability indices Flesch (German formula) and 1. Wiener Sachtextformel formula), b) an expert-based heuristic analysis of readability and comprehensibility of texts (counting technical terms and analysis of text simplicity as well as brevity and conciseness using the Hamburg intelligibility model) and c) a survey of subjects about the comprehensibility of individual technical terms, the assessment of the comprehensibility of the presentations and the subjects' decisions in favour of one of the 5 presented clinics due to the better quality of data. In addition, the correlation between the results of the text analysis with the results from the survey of subjects was tested. Results: The assessment of texts with the computer-aided evaluations showed poor comprehensibility values. The assessment of text simplicity using the Hamburg intelligibility model showed poor comprehensibility values (-0.3). On average, 6.8% of the words used were technical terms. A review of 10 technical terms revealed that in all cases only a minority of respondents (from 4.4% to 39.1%) exactly knew what was meant by each of them. Most subjects (62.4%) also believed that unclear terms worsened their understanding of the information offered. The correlation analysis showed that presentations with a lower frequency of technical terms and better values for the text simplicity were better understood. Conclusion: The determination of the frequency of technical terms and the assessment of text simplicity using the Hamburg intelligibility model were suitable methods to determine the readability and comprehensibility of presentations of quality indicators. The analysis showed predominantly poor comprehensibility values and indicated the need to improve the texts of report cards.

Surgical pathology report defects: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 73 institutions.

CONTEXT: The rate of surgical pathology report defects is an indicator of quality and it affects clinician satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To establish benchmarks for defect rates and defect fractions through a large, multi-institutional prospective application of standard taxonomy. DESIGN: Participants in a 2011 Q-Probes study of the College of American Pathologists prospectively reviewed all surgical pathology reports that underwent changes to correct defects and reported details regarding the defects. RESULTS: Seventy-three institutions reported 1688 report defects discovered in 360,218 accessioned cases, for an aggregate defect rate of 4.7 per 1000 cases. Median institutional defect rate was 5.7 per 1000 (10th to 90th percentile range, 13.5-0.9). Defect rates were higher in institutions with a pathology training program (8.5 versus 5.0 per 1000, P = .01) and when a set percentage of cases were reviewed after sign-out (median, 6.7 versus 3.8 per 1000, P = .10). Defect types were as follows: 14.6% misinterpretations, 13.3% misidentifications, 13.7% specimen defects, and 58.4% other report defects. Overall, defects were most often detected by pathologists (47.4%), followed by clinicians (22.0%). Misinterpretations and specimen defects were most often detected by pathologists (73.5% and 82.7% respectively, P < .001), while misidentifications were most often discovered by clinicians (44.6%, P < .001). Misidentification rates were lower when all malignancies were reviewed by a second pathologist before sign-out (0.0 versus 0.6 per 1000, P < .001), and specimen defect rates were lower when intradepartmental review of difficult cases was conducted after sign-out (0.0 versus 0.4 per 1000, P = .02). CONCLUSION: This study provides benchmarking data on report defects and defect fractions using standardized taxonomy.

Orthopedics coding and funding.

The French tarification à l'activité (T2A) prospective payment system is a financial system in which a health-care institution's resources are based on performed activity. Activity is described via the PMSI medical information system (programme de médicalisation du système d'information). The PMSI classifies hospital cases by clinical and economic categories known as diagnosis-related groups (DRG), each with an associated price tag. Coding a hospital case involves giving as realistic a description as possible so as to categorize it in the right DRG and thus ensure appropriate payment. For this, it is essential to understand what determines the pricing of inpatient stay: namely, the code for the surgical procedure, the patient's principal diagnosis (reason for admission), codes for comorbidities (everything that adds to management burden), and the management of the length of inpatient stay. The PMSI is used to analyze the institution's activity and dynamism: change on previous year, relation to target, and comparison with competing institutions based on indicators such as the mean length of stay performance indicator (MLS PI). The T2A system improves overall care efficiency. Quality of care, however, is not presently taken account of in the payment made to the institution, as there are no indicators for this; work needs to be done on this topic.

Do popular media and internet-based hospital quality ratings identify hospitals with better cardiovascular surgery outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Several popular media and Internet-based hospital quality rankings have become increasingly publicized as a method for patients to choose better hospitals. It is unclear whether selecting highly rated hospitals will improve outcomes after cardiovascular surgery procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Using 2005 to 2006 Medicare data, we studied all patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass, aortic valve repair, and mitral valve repair (n = 312,813). Primary outcomes included risk-adjusted mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics and surgical acuity. We compared mortality at "Best Hospitals," according to US News and World Report and HealthGrades, with all other hospitals. We adjusted for hospital volume to determine whether hospital experience accounts for differences in mortality. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted mortality was considerably lower in US News and World Report's "Best Hospitals" for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair only (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94). Risk-adjusted mortality was considerably lower in HealthGrades' "Best Hospitals" after all 4 procedures: abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97), coronary artery bypass (OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.89), aortic valve repair (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85), and mitral valve repair (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99). Accounting for hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality was not substantially lower at the US News and World Report's "Best Hospitals," while risk-adjusted mortality was lower at HealthGrades' "Best Hospitals" after coronary artery bypass and aortic valve repair mortality rates were adjusted for hospital volume (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92 and OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Popular hospital rating systems identify high-quality hospitals for cardiovascular operations. However, patients can experience equivalent outcomes by seeking care at high-volume hospitals.

Differentiating between hospitals according to the "maturity" of quality improvement systems: a new classification scheme in a sample of European hospitals.

AIM: This study, part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project focusing on cross-border patients in Europe, investigated quality policies and improvement in healthcare systems across the European Union (EU). The aim was to develop a classification scheme for the level of quality improvement (maturity) in EU hospitals, in order to evaluate hospitals according to the maturity of their quality improvement activities. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire survey designed to measure quality improvement in EU hospitals was used as the basis for the classification scheme. Items included for the development of an evaluation tool--the maturity index--were considered important contributors to quality improvement. The four-stage quality cycle (plan, do, check and act) was used to determine the level of maturity of the various items. Psychometric properties of the classification scheme were assessed, and validation analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 389 hospitals participated in a questionnaire survey; response rates varied by country. For a final sample of 349 hospitals, it was possible to construct a quality improvement maturity index which consisted of seven domains and 113 items. The results of independent analyses sustained the validity of the index, which was useful in differentiating between hospitals in the research sample according to the maturity of their quality improvement system (defined as the total of all quality improvement activities). DISCUSSION: Further research is recommended to develop an instrument which for use in the future as a practical tool to evaluate the maturity of hospital quality improvement systems.

Suitability of the Arden Syntax for representation of quality indicators.

BACKGROUND: The lack of computable clinical quality indicators in standard format makes use of the measures in electronic health records (EHR) difficult. OBJECTIVE: Assess Arden Syntax as a formalism for quality indicators. METHOD: Thirty-nine measures were encoded as medical logic modules and shortfalls identified. RESULTS: All logic components of the measures were expressible. 38% of QIs were limited by lack of data in an EHR. CONCLUSION: Arden Syntax is suitable for representation of quality indicators.

Closing the gap in children's quality measures: a collaborative model.

The need for measures of the quality of healthcare provided to children and adolescents is well documented. However, children have been underrepresented in national healthcare quality measurement and reporting efforts. The Pediatric Data Quality Systems (Pedi-QS) Collaborative is addressing this gap. Two consensus measure sets and an assessment of nursing-sensitive indicators in pediatric care have been produced through the collaborative. The framework and measure set development process are described. Lessons learned from applying the process are summarized, and future directions are suggested. Voluntary collaborative efforts are vital for advancing children's measures, and national support and funding are also needed.

Evaluation of end-of-life cancer care from the perspective of bereaved family members: the Japanese experience.

Surveying bereaved family members could enhance the quality of end-of-life cancer care in inpatient palliative care units (PCUs). We systematically reviewed nationwide postbereavement studies of PCUs in Japan and attempts to develop measures for evaluating end-of-life care from the perspective of bereaved family members. The Care Evaluation Scale (CES) for evaluating the structures and processes of care, and the Good Death Inventory (GDI) for evaluating the outcomes of care were considered suitable methods. We applied a shortened version of the CES to three nationwide surveys from 2002 to 2007. We developed the CES as an instrument to measure the structures and processes of care and the GDI as an outcomes measure for end-of-life cancer care from the perspective of bereaved family members. We conducted three nationwide surveys in 1997, 2001, and 2007 (n = 850, 853, and 5,301, respectively). Although six of the 10 areas of the CES showed significant improvements between the two time points investigated, we identified considerable potential for further progress. Feedback from surveys of bereaved family members might help to improve the quality of end-of-life cancer care in inpatient PCUs. However, the effectiveness of feedback procedures remains to be confirmed. Furthermore, there is a need to extend the ongoing evaluation process to home care hospices and general hospitals, including cancer centers, identify the limitations of end-of-life care in all settings, and develop strategies to overcome them.

Designing national quality reforms: a framework for action.

Healthcare systems worldwide strive to improve the quality of care they provide. Securing predictable systemic improvement is, however, a complex task. The imperative to be evidence-based is often constrained by the literature, which is of uneven scientific rigour and neither well-synthesized nor contextualised. This article provides a conceptual framework to guide the translation of the available evidence into policy and managerial decisions for improving quality. The framework has three aspects: a taxonomy to organize the available evidence of potential quality-enhancing interventions; a multi-tier approach to selecting and implementing interventions in a healthcare system; and a model to guide the adoption of professional, governmental and market levers for change.

Methodological issues in public reporting of patient perspectives on hospital quality.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention is being focused on public reporting of patient satisfaction and experience with hospital care, both nationally and at the state level. Comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction use a standard survey, but little is known about underlying methodological approaches for reporting these quality measures. METHODS: Literature, Web sites, and key informants were used to identify nine public reports. In-depth reviews were conducted to determine approaches to collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting comparative data. Data were grouped into four analytic categories: survey, sampling, computation of scores, and reporting of scores. RESULTS: The reports were similar in response rates and sampling procedures but differed in the number of hospitals included, the survey instrument, and survey procedure. The reports varied considerably in the techniques for computing hospital scores and decisions about reporting scores. CONCLUSIONS: Reports from nine locales illustrate the decision making necessary to produce comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction. Differences stem from decisions about the survey instrument and statistical decisions about how to interpret and report data. These issues should be clearly delineated as part of any public reporting process.

Mejora de la calidad del tratamiento farmacoterapéutico / Quality improvement in pharmaco therapy

No disponible

Control de los tiempos hasta el tratamiento en mujeres del Programa de Prevención del Cáncer de Mama de la Región de Murcia / Control of time of delay to treatment in women from the Prevention Program of Breast Cancer

Fundamento: evaluando el programa de prevención del cáncer de mama de la Región de Murcia se encuentra un excesivo tiempo desde la realización de la mamografía hasta el tratamiento quirúrgico entre las mujeres con cáncer de mama que acuden al Hospital de Área de Cartagena, tras su estudio, se diseña una intervención y se analiza el efecto de la misma. Material y métodos: Unidad de estudio: mujeres con diagnóstico de cáncer de mama, tras la realización de una mamogradía dentro del Programa. Fuente de la información: registro del Programa e historia clínica individual. Períodos de estudio: Preintervención: del XI/1994 a III/1998. Postintervención: del IV/1998 al XII/1998. Indicadores: Tiempo total (días que transcurren entre la práctica de la mamografía y el tratamiento), Tiempo extra hospitalario (entre mamografía y 1ª consulta hospitalaria), Tiempo intra-hospitalario (entre 1ª consulta y tratamiento). Se calcula la media, desviación típica, moda, mediana, percentil 75 de los tres indicadores para los dos períodos de estudio, así como un gráfico de control. Intervención: se rediseña el proceso de citación de las mujeres con mamografía sospechosa. Resultados: la media del tiempo total es de 52 días antes de intervenir y 27 después, del tiempo extra-hospitalario es de 31 días frente a 10 del tiempo intra-hospitalario 26 y 17 días respectivamente. Para los gráficos de control del tiempo total se han obtenido los siguientes parámetros: primer período, mediana 42,5 y Límite de Control Superior (LCS) 108,4 días; segundo período: mediana 30,5 y LCS 58 días. En todos los casos el LCI son cero días. Conclusiones: tras la intervención se reduce un 48 por ciento el tiempo de espera medio. El gráfico de control del segundo período puede ser utilizado para monitorizar la evolución del proceso (AU)

Dissecting the HMO-benefits managers relationship: what to measure and why.

The relationship between health maintenance organizations (HMO) and employee benefits managers (EBM) is multidimensional and complex. Relationship marketing theory is used to illustrate its role in strengthening interorganizational bonds and reducing defections to other health plans. The importance of various service dimensions in the HMO-EBM relationship can change depending on whether the measure used is overall satisfaction, overall quality, and loyalty to the HMO. By dissecting relationships in this way, HMOs can develop strategies that take multiple routes for building and maintaining strong partnerships with employee benefits managers.

Differentiating among research, evaluation and measures to assure quality.

This article explores the similarities, differences and overlaps among research, evaluation and quality measurement. Criteria for determining the differences are offered as a quick guide to differentiating among them. These criteria are the purpose of the project, generalizability, intended use of the findings, intended subjects and intent to prove causation. Determining the key differences among research, evaluation and quality measurement facilitates the choice of restrictions, supports and reporting process that should be applied to each.

Measuring the quality of clinical audit projects.

The aim of the study was to develop and pilot a scale measuring the quality of audit projects through audit project reports. Statements about clinical audit projects were selected from existing instruments assessing the quality of clinical audit projects to form a Likert scale. Audit facilitators based in Scottish health boards and trusts piloted the scale. The participants were known to have over 2 years of experience of supporting clinical audit. The response at first test was 11 of 14 and at the second test 27 of 46. Audit facilitators tested the draft scale by expressing their strength of agreement or disagreement with each statement for three reports. Validity and reliability were assessed by test - re-test, item - total, and total - global indicator correlation. Of the 20 statements, 15 had satisfactory correlation with scale totals. Scale totals had good correlation with global indicators. Test re-test correlation was modest. The wide range of responses means further research is needed to measure the consistency of audit facilitators' interpretations, perhaps comparing a trained group with an untrained group. There may be a need for a separate scale for reaudits. Educational impact is distinct from project impact generally. It may be more meaningful to treat the selection of projects and aims, methodology and impact separately as subscales and take a project profiling approach rather than attempting to produce a global quality index.