OBJECTIVE: To improve quality of care assessment for preventive medical services and reduce assessment costs through development of a comprehensive prevention quality assessment methodology based on electronic medical records (EMRs). DATA SOURCES: Random sample of 775 adult and 201 child members of a large nonprofit managed care system. STUDY DESIGN: Problems with current, labor-intensive quality measures were identified and remedied using EMR capabilities. The Prevention Index (PI) was modeled by assessing five-year patterns of delivery of 24 prevention services to adult and child health maintenance organization (HMO) members and comparing those services to consensus recommendations and to selected Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) scores for the HMO. DATA COLLECTION: Comprehensive chart reviews of 976 randomly selected members of a large managed care system were used to model the Prevention Index. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Current approaches to prevention quality assessment have serious limitations. The PI eliminates these limitations and can summarize care in a single comprehensive index that can be readily updated. The PI prioritizes services based on benefit, using a person-time approach, and separates preventive from diagnostic and therapeutic services. CONCLUSIONS: Current methods for assessing quality are expensive, cannot be applied at all system levels, and have several methodological limitations. The PI, derived from EMRs, allows comprehensive assessment of prevention quality at every level of the system and at lower cost. Standardization of quality assessment capacities of EMRs will permit accurate cross-institutional comparisons.
OBJECTIVE: To improve quality of care assessment for preventive medical services and reduce assessment costs through development of a comprehensive prevention quality assessment methodology based on electronic medical records (EMRs). DATA SOURCES: Random sample of 775 adult and 201 child members of a large nonprofit managed care system. STUDY DESIGN: Problems with current, labor-intensive quality measures were identified and remedied using EMR capabilities. The Prevention Index (PI) was modeled by assessing five-year patterns of delivery of 24 prevention services to adult and child health maintenance organization (HMO) members and comparing those services to consensus recommendations and to selected Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) scores for the HMO. DATA COLLECTION: Comprehensive chart reviews of 976 randomly selected members of a large managed care system were used to model the Prevention Index. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Current approaches to prevention quality assessment have serious limitations. The PI eliminates these limitations and can summarize care in a single comprehensive index that can be readily updated. The PI prioritizes services based on benefit, using a person-time approach, and separates preventive from diagnostic and therapeutic services. CONCLUSIONS: Current methods for assessing quality are expensive, cannot be applied at all system levels, and have several methodological limitations. The PI, derived from EMRs, allows comprehensive assessment of prevention quality at every level of the system and at lower cost. Standardization of quality assessment capacities of EMRs will permit accurate cross-institutional comparisons.
Authors: M V Maciosek; A B Coffield; J M McGinnis; J R Harris; M B Caldwell; S M Teutsch; D Atkins; J H Richland; A Haddix Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Elizabeth L Merrick; Dominic Hodgkin; Della Faulkner; Stephanie Bryson Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A B Coffield; M V Maciosek; J M McGinnis; J R Harris; M B Caldwell; S M Teutsch; D Atkins; J H Richland; A Haddix Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Barbara G Valanis; Russell E Glasgow; John Mullooly; Thomas M Vogt; Evelyn P Whitlock; Shawn M Boles; K Sabina Smith; Teresa M Kimes Journal: Prev Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Thomas M Vogt; Andrew Glass; Russell E Glasgow; Pierre A La Chance; Edward Lichtenstein Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Henk Harkema; Wendy W Chapman; Melissa Saul; Evan S Dellon; Robert E Schoen; Ateev Mehrotra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chun Chao; Michael J Silverberg; Tracy A Becerra; Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Qiaoling Chen; Virginia P Quinn Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Brigit A Hatch; Carrie J Tillotson; Nathalie Huguet; Megan J Hoopes; Miguel Marino; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Caitlin C Murphy; Michael L Jackson; Beverly B Green Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Maria A Ukhanova; Carrie J Tillotson; Miguel Marino; Nathalie Huguet; Ana R Quiñones; Brigit A Hatch; Teresa Schmidt; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lynn L DeBar; Charles Elder; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Mikel Aickin; Rick Deyo; Richard Meenan; John Dickerson; Jennifer A Webster; Bobbi Jo Yarborough Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2011-11-25 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Corinna Koebnick; Ning Smith; Karl Huang; Mayra P Martinez; Heather A Clancy; Andrew E Williams; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Popul Health Metr Date: 2012-08-21