Literature DB >> 29313756

Data Needs for a Serious Illness Care Accountability System: A Framework and Recommendations.

Tom Valuck1, Russ Montgomery1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of a comprehensive accountability system for community-based serious illness care will require a robust data infrastructure. Data will be needed to support care delivery, quality measurement, value-based payment, and evaluation and monitoring.
OBJECTIVE: The specific data needs in these areas need to be identified and understood, so that gaps in currently available data may be addressed.
DESIGN: We developed a framework that includes the needed data and data infrastructure to support the features and characteristics of a serious illness care accountability system. Based on this framework, we analyze the current data landscape to identify gaps in available data resources and capacities. This analysis was informed by conducting Internet-based research, interviews with key informants, and a survey of key informants.
RESULTS: Based on the identified gaps, we present a series of priority recommendations for advancing the data infrastructure to support community-based serious illness care. These recommendations include additional measurement of patient-reported outcomes, increasing interoperability among various data sources, increasing development and exchange of patient care plans, leveraging newly standardized data on patient functional and cognitive status, and using patient-reported information for clinical decision support at the point of care.
CONCLUSION: There are significant unmet data needs for a comprehensive accountability system in serious illness care, but these gaps can be prioritized and addressed through alignment and collaboration across stakeholders.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accountability system; care delivery; community-based care; quality measurement; serious illness; value-based payment

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29313756      PMCID: PMC5756462          DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2017.0596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Palliat Med        ISSN: 1557-7740            Impact factor:   2.947


  4 in total

Review 1.  The quality of care. How can it be assessed?

Authors:  A Donabedian
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988 Sep 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The Problems With Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment.

Authors:  Kendra A Moore; Emily B Rubin; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care.

Authors:  Joan M Teno; Brian R Clarridge; Virginia Casey; Lisa C Welch; Terrie Wetle; Renee Shield; Vincent Mor
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Minghui Li; Ilene Harris; Z Kevin Lu
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 4.615

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.