Literature DB >> 16443867

Comparison of weighted performance measurement and dichotomous thresholds for glycemic control in the Veterans Health Administration.

Leonard M Pogach1, Mangala Rajan, David C Aron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Quality measures of glycemic control using threshold values do not assess incremental quality improvement. We compared health care system performance using weighted continuous versus dichotomous measures for glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed retrospective cross-sectional analysis of chart abstraction data on 37,142 diabetic patients from 141 Veterans Health Administration medical centers in 2000-2001.
RESULTS: Subjects per facility ranged from 163 to 740 (mean 263). Mean overall HbA(1c) (A1C) was 7.58%. A continuous measure for glycemic control was calculated based on percentage of maximal quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYsS). Overall mean facility performance using the dichotomous measure was 62% <8% A1C (range 48-75%) and 39% <7% A1C (21-57%), in comparison with 45% maximal QALYsS (31-60%). Correlation between QALYsS and A1C thresholds of <8 (0.848) and <7 (0.838) for facility rankings was excellent; correlation between facility level performance using thresholds of <8 and 7% was poor (r = 0.13, P = 0.14). Comparison of facility rankings between the <7% dichotomous measure and the QALYsS-weighted measure showed that 22% changed their ranking by > or =2 deciles with marked changes in top and bottom deciles.
CONCLUSIONS: Facility rankings vary by threshold or continuous methodology. However, because significant numbers of individuals are unable to reach "optimal" target goals (thresholds) even in clinical trials with extensive exclusion criteria, we propose that a continuous measure assessing improvement toward optimal A1C, rather than a pass/fail optimal target, is both a fairer assessment clinical practice and a more accurate reflection of population health improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16443867     DOI: 10.2337/diacare.29.02.06.dc05-1468

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  10 in total

1.  The double edged sword of performance measurement.

Authors:  Kenneth W Kizer; Susan R Kirsh
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Specialists versus generalists in the era of pay for performance: "a plague o' both your houses!".

Authors:  David Aron; Leonard Pogach
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2007-02

3.  Nurse-led behavioral management of diabetes and hypertension in community practices: a randomized trial.

Authors:  David Edelman; Rowena J Dolor; Cynthia J Coffman; Katherine C Pereira; Bradi B Granger; Jennifer H Lindquist; Alice M Neary; Amy J Harris; Hayden B Bosworth
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Quality indicators and performance measures in diabetes care.

Authors:  David C Aron
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.810

5.  When tight blood pressure control is not for everyone: a new model for performance measurement in hypertension.

Authors:  Michael A Steinman; Mary K Goldstein
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2010-04

6.  The Surgical Care Improvement Project Antibiotic Guidelines: Should We Expect More Than Good Intentions?

Authors:  Robert B Schonberger; Paul G Barash; Robert S Lagasse
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 7.  Do clinical standards for diabetes care address excess risk for hypoglycemia in vulnerable patients? A systematic review.

Authors:  Seth A Berkowitz; Katherine Aragon; Jonas Hines; Hilary Seligman; Sei Lee; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Hidden complexities in assessment of glycemic outcomes: are quality rankings aligned with treatment?

Authors:  Leonard M Pogach; Mangala Rajan; Miriam Maney; Chin-Lin Tseng; David C Aron
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Diabetes performance measures: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Patrick J O'Connor; Noni L Bodkin; Judith Fradkin; Russell E Glasgow; Sheldon Greenfield; Edward Gregg; Eve A Kerr; L Gregory Pawlson; Joseph V Selby; John E Sutherland; Michael L Taylor; Carol H Wysham
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Identification of outliers and positive deviants for healthcare improvement: looking for high performers in hypoglycemia safety in patients with diabetes.

Authors:  Brigid Wilson; Chin-Lin Tseng; Orysya Soroka; Leonard M Pogach; David C Aron
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 2.655

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.