Literature DB >> 24558050

Guiding principles and checklist for population-based quality metrics.

Mahesh Krishnan1, Steven M Brunelli2, Franklin W Maddux3, Thomas F Parker4, Douglas Johnson5, Allen R Nissenson2, Allan Collins6, Eduardo Lacson7.   

Abstract

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversees the ESRD Quality Incentive Program to ensure that the highest quality of health care is provided by outpatient dialysis facilities that treat patients with ESRD. To that end, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services uses clinical performance measures to evaluate quality of care under a pay-for-performance or value-based purchasing model. Now more than ever, the ESRD therapeutic area serves as the vanguard of health care delivery. By translating medical evidence into clinical performance measures, the ESRD Prospective Payment System became the first disease-specific sector using the pay-for-performance model. A major challenge for the creation and implementation of clinical performance measures is the adjustments that are necessary to transition from taking care of individual patients to managing the care of patient populations. The National Quality Forum and others have developed effective and appropriate population-based clinical performance measures quality metrics that can be aggregated at the physician, hospital, dialysis facility, nursing home, or surgery center level. Clinical performance measures considered for endorsement by the National Quality Forum are evaluated using five key criteria: evidence, performance gap, and priority (impact); reliability; validity; feasibility; and usability and use. We have developed a checklist of special considerations for clinical performance measure development according to these National Quality Forum criteria. Although the checklist is focused on ESRD, it could also have broad application to chronic disease states, where health care delivery organizations seek to enhance quality, safety, and efficiency of their services. Clinical performance measures are likely to become the norm for tracking performance for health care insurers. Thus, it is critical that the methodologies used to develop such metrics serve the payer and the provider and most importantly, reflect what represents the best care to improve patient outcomes.
Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anemia; calcium; dialysis; hospitalization; parathyroid hormone

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24558050      PMCID: PMC4046735          DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11061013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1555-9041            Impact factor:   8.237


  11 in total

1.  Improving outcomes for ESRD patients: shifting the quality paradigm.

Authors:  Allen R Nissenson
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 8.237

2.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-04-26

3.  In data we trust: the role and utility of dialysis provider databases in the policy process.

Authors:  Mahesh Krishnan; Helen M Wilfehrt; Eduardo Lacson
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 8.237

4.  A history of and a vision for CMS quality measurement programs.

Authors:  Kate Goodrich; Edward Garcia; Patrick H Conway
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2012-10

5.  A quality initiative. Reducing rates of hospitalizations by objectively monitoring volume removal.

Authors:  Tom F Parker; Raymond Hakim; Allen R Nissenson; Mahesh Krishnan; T Christopher Bond; Kevin Chan; Franklin W Maddux; Richard Glassock
Journal:  Nephrol News Issues       Date:  2013-03

6.  Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).

Authors:  K Uhlig; A Macleod; J Craig; J Lau; A S Levey; A Levin; L Moist; E Steinberg; R Walker; C Wanner; N Lameire; G Eknoyan
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 10.612

7.  Improvements in dialysis patient mortality are associated with improvements in urea reduction ratio and hematocrit, 1999 to 2002.

Authors:  Robert A Wolfe; Tempie E Hulbert-Shearon; Valarie B Ashby; Sangeetha Mahadevan; Friedrich K Port
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 8.860

8.  Hemodialysis facility-based quality-of-care indicators and facility-specific patient outcomes.

Authors:  Eduardo Lacson; Weiling Wang; J Michael Lazarus; Raymond M Hakim
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 8.860

9.  Associates of mortality and hospitalization in hemodialysis: potentially actionable laboratory variables and vascular access.

Authors:  Eduardo Lacson; Weiling Wang; Raymond M Hakim; Ming Teng; J Michael Lazarus
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2008-10-18       Impact factor: 8.860

10.  Medicare program; end-stage renal disease prospective payment system, quality incentive program, and bad debt reductions for all Medicare providers. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2012-11-09
View more
  6 in total

1.  Performance Measurement and the Kidney Quality Improvement Registry.

Authors:  Michael J Fischer; Paul M Palevsky
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 2.  The Use of a Multidimensional Measure of Dialysis Adequacy-Moving beyond Small Solute Kinetics.

Authors:  Jeffrey Perl; Laura M Dember; Joanne M Bargman; Teri Browne; David M Charytan; Jennifer E Flythe; LaTonya J Hickson; Adriana M Hung; Michel Jadoul; Timmy Chang Lee; Klemens B Meyer; Hamid Moradi; Tariq Shafi; Isaac Teitelbaum; Leslie P Wong; Christopher T Chan
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 3.  Pragmatic Trials in Maintenance Dialysis: Perspectives from the Kidney Health Initiative.

Authors:  Laura M Dember; Patrick Archdeacon; Mahesh Krishnan; Eduardo Lacson; Shari M Ling; Prabir Roy-Chaudhury; Kimberly A Smith; Michael F Flessner
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 10.121

4.  Evaluation of real-time use of electronic patient-reported outcome data by nurses with patients in home dialysis clinics.

Authors:  Kara Schick-Makaroff; Anita E Molzahn
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Strategies for incorporating patient-reported outcomes in the care of people with chronic kidney disease (PRO kidney): a protocol for a realist synthesis.

Authors:  Kara Schick-Makaroff; Onouma Thummapol; Stephanie Thompson; Rachel Flynn; Mehri Karimi-Dehkordi; Scott Klarenbach; Richard Sawatzky; Joanne Greenhalgh
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2019-01-12

6.  An Environmental Scan of Canadian Quality Metrics for Patients on In-Center Hemodialysis.

Authors:  Daniel Blum; Alison Thomas; Claire Harris; Jay Hingwala; William Beaubien-Souligny; Samuel A Silver
Journal:  Can J Kidney Health Dis       Date:  2020-12-08
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.