Literature DB >> 10569298

Benchmarking and quality improvement: the Harvard Emergency Department Quality Study.

H R Burstin1, A Conn, G Setnik, D W Rucker, P D Cleary, A C O'Neil, E J Orav, C M Sox, T A Brennan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether feedback of comparative information was associated with improvement in medical record and patient-based measures of quality in emergency departments. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: During 1-month study periods in 1993 and 1995, all medical records for patients who presented to five Harvard teaching hospital emergency departments with one of six selected chief complaints (abdominal pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, hand laceration, head trauma, or vaginal bleeding) were reviewed for the percent compliance with process-of-care guidelines. Patient-reported problems and patient ratings of satisfaction with emergency department care were collected from eligible patients using patient questionnaires. After reviewing benchmark information, emergency department directors designed quality improvement interventions to improve compliance with the process-of-care guidelines and improve patient-reported quality measures.
RESULTS: In the preintervention period, 4,876 medical records were reviewed (99% of those eligible), 2,327 patients completed on-site questionnaires (84% of those eligible), and 1,386 patients completed 10-day follow-up questionnaires (80% of a random sample of eligible participants). In the postintervention period, 6,005 medical records were reviewed (99% of those eligible), 2,899 patients completed on-site questionnaires (84% of those eligible), and 2,326 patients completed 10-day follow-up questionnaires (80% of all baseline participants). In multivariate analyses, adjusting for age, urgency, chief complaint, and site, compliance with process-of-care guidelines increased from 55.9% (preintervention) to 60.4% (postintervention, P = 0.0001). We also found a 4% decrease (from 24% to 20%) in the rate of patient-reported problems with emergency department care (P = 0.0001). There were no significant improvements in patient ratings of satisfaction.
CONCLUSION: Feedback of benchmark information and subsequent quality improvement efforts led to small, although significant, improvement in compliance with process-of-care guidelines and patient-reported measures of quality. The measures that relied on patient reports of problems with care, rather than patient ratings of satisfaction with care, seemed to be more responsive to change. These results support the value of benchmarking and collaboration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10569298     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)00269-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  18 in total

1.  Emergency department crowding and risk of preventable medical errors.

Authors:  Stephen K Epstein; David S Huckins; Shan W Liu; Daniel J Pallin; Ashley F Sullivan; Robert I Lipton; Carlos A Camargo
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 2.  Biomedical informatics applications for asthma care: a systematic review.

Authors:  David L Sanders; Dominik Aronsky
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-04-18       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Clinical impact of the use of additional ultrasonography in diagnostic breast imaging.

Authors:  Luc D B Vercauteren; Alphons G H Kessels; Trudy van der Weijden; Dick Koster; Johan L Severens; Jos M A van Engelshoven; Karin Flobbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  The influence of evidence in the surgical treatment of thumb basilar joint arthritis.

Authors:  Oluseyi Aliu; Matthew M Davis; Sonya DeMonner; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 5.  Review of the literature on survey instruments used to collect data on hospital patients' perceptions of care.

Authors:  Nicholas G Castle; Julie Brown; Kimberly A Hepner; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Healthcare provider complaints to the emergency department: a preliminary report on a new quality improvement instrument.

Authors:  R T Griffey; J S Bohan
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2006-10

Review 7.  Critical pathways for patients with acute chest pain at low risk.

Authors:  Kirsten E Fleischmann; Lee Goldman; Paula A Johnson; Richard A Krasuski; J Stephen Bohan; L Howard Hartley; Thomas H Lee
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 8.  Safety issues and concerns for the neurological patient in the emergency department.

Authors:  Edward M Manno
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.210

9.  Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals.

Authors:  Jennifer L Bailit; William A Grobman; Madeline Murguia Rice; Catherine Y Spong; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Kenneth J Leveno; Steve N Caritis; Phillip J Shubert; Alan T Tita; George Saade; Yoram Sorokin; Dwight J Rouse; Sean C Blackwell; Jorge E Tolosa; J Peter Van Dorsten
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  The Consumer Quality Index in an accident and emergency department: internal consistency, validity and discriminative capacity.

Authors:  Nanne Bos; Leontien M Sturms; Rebecca K Stellato; Augustinus J P Schrijvers; Henk F van Stel
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.