Todd Schneberk1, Maria Bolshakova2, Kylie Sloan2, Evelyn Chang3, Julia Stal2, Jennifer Dinalo2, Elvira Jimenez3, Aneesa Motala4,2, Susanne Hempel4,2. 1. Gehr Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, GNH 1011, 1200 N State Street Rm 1011, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. todd.schneberk@med.usc.edu. 2. Southern California Evidence Review Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Sepulveda, CA, USA. 4. Gehr Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, GNH 1011, 1200 N State Street Rm 1011, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly implementing programs for high-need patients, who often have multiple chronic conditions and complex social situations. Little, however, is known about quality indicators that might guide healthcare organizations and providers in improving care for high-need patients. We sought to conduct a systematic review to identify potential quality indicators for high-need patients. METHODS: This systematic review (CRD42020215917) searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE; guideline clearing houses ECRI and GIN; and Google scholar. We included publications suggesting, evaluating, and utilizing indicators to assess quality of care for high-need patients. Critical appraisal of the indicators addressed the development process, endorsement and adoption, and characteristics, such as feasibility. We standardized indicators by patient population subgroups to facilitate comparisons across different indicator groups. RESULTS: The search identified 6964 citations. Of these, 1382 publications were obtained as full text, and 53 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified over 1700 quality indicators across studies. Quality indicator characteristics varied widely. The scope of the selected indicators ranged from detailed criterion (e.g., "annual eye exam") to very broad categories (e.g., "care coordination"). Some publications suggested disease condition-specific indicators (e.g., diabetes), some used condition-independent criteria (e.g., "documentation of the medication list in the medical record available to all care agencies"), and some publications used a mixture of indicator types. DISCUSSION: We identified and evaluated existing quality indicators for a complex, heterogeneous patient group. Although some quality indicators were not disease-specific, we found very few that accounted for social determinants of health and behavioral factors. More research is needed to develop quality indicators that address patient risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly implementing programs for high-need patients, who often have multiple chronic conditions and complex social situations. Little, however, is known about quality indicators that might guide healthcare organizations and providers in improving care for high-need patients. We sought to conduct a systematic review to identify potential quality indicators for high-need patients. METHODS: This systematic review (CRD42020215917) searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE; guideline clearing houses ECRI and GIN; and Google scholar. We included publications suggesting, evaluating, and utilizing indicators to assess quality of care for high-need patients. Critical appraisal of the indicators addressed the development process, endorsement and adoption, and characteristics, such as feasibility. We standardized indicators by patient population subgroups to facilitate comparisons across different indicator groups. RESULTS: The search identified 6964 citations. Of these, 1382 publications were obtained as full text, and 53 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified over 1700 quality indicators across studies. Quality indicator characteristics varied widely. The scope of the selected indicators ranged from detailed criterion (e.g., "annual eye exam") to very broad categories (e.g., "care coordination"). Some publications suggested disease condition-specific indicators (e.g., diabetes), some used condition-independent criteria (e.g., "documentation of the medication list in the medical record available to all care agencies"), and some publications used a mixture of indicator types. DISCUSSION: We identified and evaluated existing quality indicators for a complex, heterogeneous patient group. Although some quality indicators were not disease-specific, we found very few that accounted for social determinants of health and behavioral factors. More research is needed to develop quality indicators that address patient risk factors.
Authors: Howard Balshem; Mark Helfand; Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan Norris; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Peter C Wierenga; Joanna E Klopotowska; Susanne M Smorenburg; Hendrikus J van Kan; Yuma A Bijleveld; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Christine S Ritchie; Bruce Leff; Sarah K Garrigues; Carla Perissinotto; Orla C Sheehan; Krista L Harrison Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Linda S Kahn; Chester H Fox; Adefunke Olawaiye; Timothy J Servoss; Elizabeth McLean-Plunkett Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Erin R Giovannetti; Sydney Dy; Bruce Leff; Christine Weston; Karen Adams; Tom B Valuck; Aisha T Pittman; Caroline S Blaum; Barbara A McCann; Cynthia M Boyd Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.229