Andrew M Ryan1, Tim Doran. 1. Public Health Department, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. amr2015@med.cornell.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive use of process of care measures in pay-for-performance programs, little is known about the effect of improving process performance on patient outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal analysis of data extracted from 7228 family practices in the United Kingdom's Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance program. We estimated the proportion of the change in outcome performance over time which was attributable to change in process performance for 5 chronic conditions (diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, epilepsy, and hypertension). Our analytic strategy accounted for bias resulting from unmeasured processes of care and severity of illness. RESULTS: The estimated improvement in composite outcomes that was attributable to improved process was 29.6% for diabetes, 25.6% for coronary heart disease, 34.7% for stroke, 29.1% for epilepsy, and 17.7% for hypertension. The relationship between processes and outcomes varied little across patient and practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in process performance in English family practices led to improvements in patient outcomes. Although the effect was modest at the practice-level, process improvements seem to have led to substantial improvements in population health.
BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive use of process of care measures in pay-for-performance programs, little is known about the effect of improving process performance on patient outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal analysis of data extracted from 7228 family practices in the United Kingdom's Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance program. We estimated the proportion of the change in outcome performance over time which was attributable to change in process performance for 5 chronic conditions (diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, epilepsy, and hypertension). Our analytic strategy accounted for bias resulting from unmeasured processes of care and severity of illness. RESULTS: The estimated improvement in composite outcomes that was attributable to improved process was 29.6% for diabetes, 25.6% for coronary heart disease, 34.7% for stroke, 29.1% for epilepsy, and 17.7% for hypertension. The relationship between processes and outcomes varied little across patient and practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in process performance in English family practices led to improvements in patient outcomes. Although the effect was modest at the practice-level, process improvements seem to have led to substantial improvements in population health.
Authors: Kimberly A Hepner; Katherine E Watkins; Carrie M Farmer; Lisa Rubenstein; Eric R Pedersen; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2017-01-26
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Craig Conlon; Michael Robbins; Michael Dworsky; Julie Lai; Carol P Roth; Barbara Levitan; Seth Seabury; Rachana Seelam; Douglas Benner; Steven M Asch Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.217