BACKGROUND: Nonoperating room anesthesia is a growing field of medicine that can have an increased risk of complications, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the incidence of complications after pediatric nonoperating room anesthesia and investigate its risk factors.
METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we included all children aged less than 5 years who were sedated or anesthetized in the radiology setting of a university hospital in a low- and middle-income country. Patients were divided into two groups: complications or no-complications groups. Then, we compared both groups, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the main risk factors for complications.
RESULTS: We included 256 children, and the incidence of complications was 8.6%. The main predictors of nonoperating room anesthesia-related morbidity were: critically-ill children (aOR = 2.490; 95% CI: 1.55-11.21), predicted difficult airway (aOR = 5.704; 95% CI: 1.017-31.98), and organization insufficiencies (aOR = 52.6; 95% CI:4.55-613). The preanesthetic consultation few days before NORA protected against complications (aOR = 0.263; 95%CI: 0.080-0.867).
CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of complications during NORA among children in our radiology setting remains high. Investigating predictors for morbidity allowed high-risk patient selection, which allowed taking precautions. Several improvement measures were taken to address the organization\'s insufficiencies.

OBJECTIVE: In Spain, Quality Units play a key and unique role in advising healthcare centers on the methodology of healthcare quality. The objectives of the study were to develop computer algorithms to obtain a synthetic indicator of standard compliance for Quality Units and to pilot its functioning in these units.
METHODS: The Excel program was used to establish evaluation algorithms, and quantitatively interrelate and weight various categories of standards, as a computer evaluation tool, to build a continuous improvement cycle system, and offer a global synthetic indicator of compliance. The tool was tested in a prospective multicenter pilot study, in which coordinators of Quality Units from different health centers and care settings participated, to evaluate the usefulness of the tool and compliance with the standards, in addition to analyzing the content validity of each standard.
RESULTS: The formulas for the structured computer algorithms were developed, consecutively, in a «PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT» improvement cycle for the 9 categories of standards, resulting in a single synthetic indicator of compliance. Twenty-one Quality Units participated in the piloting. The overall average compliance rate for the synthetic indicator was 55.63% with differences between centers (P=.002) and between categories (P<.0001), but not by autonomous communities (P=.86) or by areas (P=.97). Content validity was ensured through the variable of «understanding» of the standards (P<.001), and through their «justification» with documentary evidence (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The computer tool with the synthetic indicator have allowed for the evaluation of standard compliance in Quality Units of healthcare centers.

BACKGROUND: The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a pay incentive scheme in England designed to improve and standardise general practice. QOF attainment has been used as a proxy for primary care quality in previous research.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is a relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and QOF attainment in primary care in England.
METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal study of primary care providers in England.
METHODS: QOF scores were obtained for individual general practices in England from between 2007-2019 and linked to practice-level Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores derived from census data. Beta regression analyses were used to analyse the relationship with either percentage of total QOF attainment or of domain-specific attainment with multivariate analyses, adjusting for additional practice-level demographics. QOF attainment in the most affluent quintile was used as the reference group.
RESULTS: General practices in less deprived areas have consistently outperformed those in more deprived areas in terms of QOF achievement. Initially, the gap between least and most deprived practices decreased, however since 2015 there has been relatively little change in comparative performance. The magnitude of inequality was reduced after adjusting for demographic factors. Of the independent variables analysed, the proportion of patients aged >65 years (\'over 65s\') had the strongest relationship with QOF attainment.
CONCLUSIONS: There remains an inequality in primary care quality by socioeconomic deprivation in England, even after accounting for demographic differences.

OBJECTIVE: A pay for performance programme was introduced in 2009 by a Swedish county with 1.6 million inhabitants. A process measure with payment linked to coding for medication reviews among the elderly was adopted. We assessed the association with inappropriate medication for five years after baseline.
METHODS: Observational study that compared medication for elderly patients enrolled at primary care units that coded for a high or low volume of medication reviews.
METHODS: 144,222 individuals at 196 primary care centres, age 75 or older.
METHODS: Percentage of patients receiving inappropriate drugs or polypharmacy during five years at primary care units with various levels of reported medication reviews.
RESULTS: The proportion of patients with a registered medication review had increased from 3.2% to 44.1% after five years. The high-coding units performed better for most indicators but had already done so at baseline. Primary care units with the lowest payment for coding for medication reviews improved just as well in terms of inappropriate drugs as units with the highest payment - from 13.0 to 8.5%, compared to 11.6 to 7.4% and from 13.6 to 7.2% vs 11.8 to 6.5% for polypharmacy.
CONCLUSIONS: Payment linked to coding for medication reviews was associated with an increase in the percentage of patients for whom a medication review had been registered. However, the impact of payment on quality improvement is uncertain, given that units with the lowest payment for medication reviews improved equally well as units with the highest payment.

OBJECTIVE: A pay-for-performance (P4P) programme for primary care was introduced in 2011 by a Swedish county (with 1.6 million inhabitants). Effects on register entry practice and comparability of data for patients with diabetes mellitus were assessed.
METHODS: Observational study analysing short-term outcomes before and after introduction of a P4P programme in the study county as compared with a reference county.
METHODS: A total of 84 053 patients reported to the National Diabetes Register by 349 primary care units.
METHODS: Completeness of data, level and target achievement of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP), and LDL cholesterol (LDL).
RESULTS: In the study county, newly recruited patients who were entered during the incentive programme were less well controlled than existing patients in the register - they had higher HbA1c (54.9 [54.5-55.4] vs. 53.7 [53.6-53.9] mmol/mol), BP, and LDL. The percentage of patients with entry of BP, HbA1c, LDL, albuminuria, and smoking increased in the study county but not in the reference county (+26.3% vs -1.5%). In the study county, with an incentive for BP < 130/80 mmHg, BP data entry behaviour was altered with an increased preference for sub-target BP values and a decline in zero end-digit readings (38.3% vs. 33.7%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: P4P led to increased register entry, increased completeness of data, and altered BP entry behaviour. Analysis of newly added patients and data shows that missing patients and data can cause performance to be overestimated. Potential effects on reporting quality should be considered when designing payment programmes. Key points A pay-for-performance programme, with a focus on data entry, was introduced in a primary care region in Sweden. Register data entry in the National Diabetes Register increased and registration behaviour was altered, especially for blood pressure. Newly entered patients and data during the incentive programme were less well controlled. Missing data in a quality register can cause performance to be overestimated.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the concurrent validity of three European sets of drug-specific indicators of prescribing quality
METHODS: In 200 hip fracture patients (≥65 years), consecutively recruited to a randomized controlled study in Sahlgrenska University Hospital in 2009, quality of drug treatment at study entry was assessed according to a gold standard as well as to three drug-specific indicator sets (Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, French consensus panel list, and German PRISCUS list). As gold standard, two specialist physicians independently assessed and then agreed on the quality for each patient, after initial screening with STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons\' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment).
RESULTS: According to the Swedish, French, and German indicator sets, 82 (41%), 54 (27%), and 43 (22%) patients had potentially inappropriate drug treatment. A total of 141 (71%) patients had suboptimal drug treatment according to the gold standard. The sensitivity for the indicator sets was 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.43; 0.59), 0.33 (0.26; 0.41), and 0.29 (0.22; 0.37), respectively. The specificity was 0.83 (0.72; 0.91), 0.88 (0.77; 0.94), and 0.97 (0.88; 0.99). Suboptimal drug treatment was 2.0 (0.8; 5.3), 1.9 (0.7; 5.1), and 6.1 (1.3; 28.6) times as common in patients with potentially inappropriate drug treatment according to the indicator sets, after adjustments for age, sex, cognition, residence, multi-dose drug dispensing, and number of drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, the indicator sets had high specificity and low sensitivity. This needs to be considered upon use and interpretation.

Even if the performance of a given ventilator has been evaluated in the laboratory under very well controlled conditions, inappropriate maintenance and lack of long-term stability and accuracy of the ventilator sensors may lead to ventilation errors in actual clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual performances of ventilators during clinical routines. A resistance (7.69 cmH(2)O/L/s) - elastance (100 mL/cmH(2)O) test lung equipped with pressure, flow, and oxygen concentration sensors was connected to the Y-piece of all the mechanical ventilators available for patients in four intensive care units (ICUs; n = 66). Ventilators were set to volume-controlled ventilation with tidal volume = 600 mL, respiratory rate = 20 breaths/minute, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 8 cmH(2)O, and oxygen fraction = 0.5. The signals from the sensors were recorded to compute the ventilation parameters. The average ± standard deviation and range (min-max) of the ventilatory parameters were the following: inspired tidal volume = 607 ± 36 (530-723) mL, expired tidal volume = 608 ± 36 (530-728) mL, peak pressure = 20.8 ± 2.3 (17.2-25.9) cmH(2)O, respiratory rate = 20.09 ± 0.35 (19.5-21.6) breaths/minute, PEEP = 8.43 ± 0.57 (7.26-10.8) cmH(2)O, oxygen fraction = 0.49 ± 0.014 (0.41-0.53). The more error-prone parameters were the ones related to the measure of flow. In several cases, the actual delivered mechanical ventilation was considerably different from the set one, suggesting the need for improving quality control procedures for these machines.