BACKGROUND: Despite safe and cost-effective venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention measures, VTE prophylaxis rates are often suboptimal. Healthcare reform efforts emphasize transparency through programs to report performance and payment incentives through pay-for-performance programs. OBJECTIVE: To sequentially examine an individualized physician dashboard and pay-for-performance program to improve VTE prophylaxis rates among hospitalists. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 3144 inpatient admissions. After a baseline observation period, VTE prophylaxis compliance was compared during both interventions. SETTING: A 1060-bed tertiary care medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight part-time and full-time academic hospitalists. INTERVENTIONS: A Web-based hospitalist dashboard provided VTE prophylaxis feedback. After 6 months of feedback only, a pay-for-performance program was incorporated, with graduated payouts for compliance rates of 80% to 100%. MEASUREMENTS: Prescription of American College of Chest Physicians' guideline-compliant VTE prophylaxis and subsequent pay-for-performance payments. RESULTS: Monthly VTE prophylaxis compliance rates were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85-88), 90% (95% CI: 88-93), and 94% (95% CI: 93-96) during the baseline, dashboard, and combined dashboard/pay-for-performance periods, respectively. Compliance significantly improved with the use of the dashboard (P = 0.01) and addition of the pay-for-performance program (P = 0.01). The highest rate of improvement occurred with the dashboard (1.58%/month; P = 0.01). Annual individual physician performance payments ranged from $53 to $1244 (mean $633; standard deviation ±$350). CONCLUSIONS: Direct feedback using dashboards was associated with significantly improved compliance, with further improvement after incorporating an individual physician pay-for-performance program. Real-time dashboards and physician-level incentives may assist hospitals in achieving higher safety and quality benchmarks.
BACKGROUND: Despite safe and cost-effective venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention measures, VTE prophylaxis rates are often suboptimal. Healthcare reform efforts emphasize transparency through programs to report performance and payment incentives through pay-for-performance programs. OBJECTIVE: To sequentially examine an individualized physician dashboard and pay-for-performance program to improve VTE prophylaxis rates among hospitalists. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 3144 inpatient admissions. After a baseline observation period, VTE prophylaxis compliance was compared during both interventions. SETTING: A 1060-bed tertiary care medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight part-time and full-time academic hospitalists. INTERVENTIONS: A Web-based hospitalist dashboard provided VTE prophylaxis feedback. After 6 months of feedback only, a pay-for-performance program was incorporated, with graduated payouts for compliance rates of 80% to 100%. MEASUREMENTS: Prescription of American College of Chest Physicians' guideline-compliant VTE prophylaxis and subsequent pay-for-performance payments. RESULTS: Monthly VTE prophylaxis compliance rates were 86% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85-88), 90% (95% CI: 88-93), and 94% (95% CI: 93-96) during the baseline, dashboard, and combined dashboard/pay-for-performance periods, respectively. Compliance significantly improved with the use of the dashboard (P = 0.01) and addition of the pay-for-performance program (P = 0.01). The highest rate of improvement occurred with the dashboard (1.58%/month; P = 0.01). Annual individual physician performance payments ranged from $53 to $1244 (mean $633; standard deviation ±$350). CONCLUSIONS: Direct feedback using dashboards was associated with significantly improved compliance, with further improvement after incorporating an individual physician pay-for-performance program. Real-time dashboards and physician-level incentives may assist hospitals in achieving higher safety and quality benchmarks.
Authors: Scott A Flanders; M Todd Greene; Paul Grant; Scott Kaatz; David Paje; Bobby Lee; James Barron; Vineet Chopra; David Share; Steven J Bernstein Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Adil H Haider; Michael B Streiff; Christoph U Lehmann; Peggy S Kraus; Deborah B Hobson; Franca S Kraenzlin; Amer M Zeidan; Peter J Pronovost; Elliott R Haut Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: William H Geerts; David Bergqvist; Graham F Pineo; John A Heit; Charles M Samama; Michael R Lassen; Clifford W Colwell Journal: Chest Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Alexander T Cohen; Victor F Tapson; Jean-Francois Bergmann; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Ajay K Kakkar; Bruno Deslandes; Wei Huang; Maksim Zayaruzny; Leigh Emery; Frederick A Anderson Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-02-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kara L Piechowski; Stacy Elder; Leigh E Efird; Elliott R Haut; Michael B Streiff; Brandyn D Lau; Peggy S Kraus; Cynthia S Rand; Victor O Popoola; Deborah B Hobson; Norma E Farrow; Dauryne Shaffer; Kenneth M Shermock Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Sajan Patel; Logan Pierce; Maggie Jones; Andrew Lai; Michelle Cai; Bradley A Sharpe; James D Harrison Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2021-10-28
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Dauryne L Shaffer; Deborah B Hobson; Gayane Yenokyan; Jiangxia Wang; Elizabeth A Sugar; Joseph K Canner; David Bongiovanni; Peggy S Kraus; Victor O Popoola; Hasan M Shihab; Norma E Farrow; Jonathan K Aboagye; Peter J Pronovost; Michael B Streiff; Elliott R Haut Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jung Yin Tsang; Niels Peek; Iain Buchan; Sabine N van der Veer; Benjamin Brown Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 7.942