UNASSIGNED: Quantifying guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) intensity is foundational for improving heart failure (HF) care. Existing measures discount dose intensity or use inconsistent weighting.
UNASSIGNED: The Kansas City Medical Optimization (KCMO) score is the average of total daily to target dose percentages for eligible GDMT, reflecting the percentage of optimal GDMT prescribed (range, 0-100). In Change the Management of Patients With HF, we computed KCMO, HF collaboratory (0-7), and modified HF Collaboratory (0-100) scores for each patient at baseline and for 1-year change in established GDMT at the time (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, β-blocker, ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor). We compared baseline and 1-year change distributions and the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) across scores.
UNASSIGNED: Among 4532 patients at baseline, mean KCMO, HF collaboratory, and modified HF Collaboratory scores were 38.8 (SD, 25.7), 3.4 (1.7), and 42.2 (22.2), respectively. The mean 1-year change (n=4061) for KCMO was -1.94 (17.8); HF collaborator, -0.11 (1.32); and modified HF Collaboratory, -1.35 (19.8). KCMO had the highest coefficient of variation (0.66), indicating greater variability around the mean than the HF collaboratory (0.49) and modified HF Collaboratory (0.53) scores, reflecting higher resolution of the variability in GDMT intensity across patients.
UNASSIGNED: KCMO measures GDMT intensity by incorporating dosing and treatment eligibility, provides more granularity than existing methods, is easily interpretable (percentage of ideal GDMT), and can be adapted as performance measures evolve. Further study of its association with outcomes and its usefulness for quality assessment and improvement is needed.

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.

UNASSIGNED: Methods for assessing long-term outcome quality of acute care for sepsis are lacking. We investigated a method for measuring long-term outcome quality based on health claims data in Germany.
UNASSIGNED: Analyses were based on data of the largest German health insurer, covering 32% of the population. Cases (aged 15 years and older) with ICD-10-codes for severe sepsis or septic shock according to sepsis-1-definitions hospitalized in 2014 were included. Short-term outcome was assessed by 90-day mortality; long-term outcome was assessed by a composite endpoint defined by 1-year mortality or increased dependency on chronic care. Risk factors were identified by logistic regressions with backward selection. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to correct for clustering of cases in hospitals. Predictive validity of the models was assessed by internal validation using bootstrap-sampling. Risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) were calculated with and without reliability adjustment and their univariate and bivariate distributions were described.
UNASSIGNED: Among 35,552 included patients, 53.2% died within 90 days after admission; 39.8% of 90-day survivors died within the first year or had an increased dependency on chronic care. Both risk-models showed a sufficient predictive validity regarding discrimination [AUC = 0.748 (95% CI: 0.742; 0.752) for 90-day mortality; AUC = 0.675 (95% CI: 0.665; 0.685) for the 1-year composite outcome, respectively], calibration (Brier Score of 0.203 and 0.220; calibration slope of 1.094 and 0.978), and explained variance (R 2 = 0.242 and R 2 = 0.111). Because of a small case-volume per hospital, applying reliability adjustment to the RSMR led to a great decrease in variability across hospitals [from median (1st quartile, 3rd quartile) 54.2% (44.3%, 65.5%) to 53.2% (50.7%, 55.9%) for 90-day mortality; from 39.2% (27.8%, 51.1%) to 39.9% (39.5%, 40.4%) for the 1-year composite endpoint]. There was no substantial correlation between the two endpoints at hospital level (observed rates: ρ = 0, p = 0.99; RSMR: ρ = 0.017, p = 0.56; reliability-adjusted RSMR: ρ = 0.067; p = 0.026).
UNASSIGNED: Quality assurance and epidemiological surveillance of sepsis care should include indicators of long-term mortality and morbidity. Claims-based risk-adjustment models for quality indicators of acute sepsis care showed satisfactory predictive validity. To increase reliability of measurement, data sources should cover the full population and hospitals need to improve ICD-10-coding of sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Lithium is the best documented maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder, but its use varies considerably across and within countries. It is not known whether regional differences in lithium prescription rates translate to differing regional outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate associations between county specific lithium prescription rates and county specific recurrence odds of bipolar disorder in Sweden.
METHODS: Data from 14,616 patients with bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder, or bipolar disorder not otherwise specified were extracted from the Swedish national quality assurance register for bipolar disorders (BipoläR). Lithium prescription frequencies were calculated for 21 counties. Logistic regression analyses were run adjusted for confounders, with any type of recurrence as primary outcome, and incident elated and depressive episodes as secondary outcomes. Subsets of patients with bipolar I, II and not otherwise specified disorder were also analysed separately.
RESULTS: Lithium prescription rates for populations with all bipolar subtypes ranged across counties from 37.7 to 84.9% (mean 52.4%). Higher regional prescription rates were significantly associated with lower rate of any type of recurrence. The association was stronger when bipolar I disorder was analysed separately.
CONCLUSIONS: The advantages for lithium use long acknowledged for bipolar I disorder are also seen for the rest of the bipolar spectrum. Results suggest that population level outcomes of bipolar disorder could be improved by increasing the number of patients using lithium.

Publicly reported postoperative 30-day mortality rates are commonly used to compare hospital quality after coronary artery bypass grafting. We sought to determine whether 90-day mortality rates, which are not publicly reported but better capture postdischarge mortality, are a better determinant of hospital performance.
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 30- versus 90-day risk-standardized mortality rates at adult cardiac surgical centers in New York State from 2008 to 2014. Hospitals were classified as good or poor performing outliers at each time point based on the bounds of the 95% confidence interval around each hospital\'s predicted risk-standardized mortality rates determined via hierarchical models. The primary outcome was change in institutional performance via outlier classification from 30 to 90 days.
During the study period, 72,398 adults underwent a coronary artery bypass grafting procedure at 1 of 42 institutions. The risk-standardized mortality rates increased from 30 to 90 days at all institutions, with a median 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate of 2.16% (interquartile range, 0.69%) and median 90-day risk-standardized mortality rate of 3.69% (interquartile range, 1.00%). In using a 90-day instead of a 30-day metric, 3 hospitals changed outlier status. One hospital improved to a good from as expected performer, and 2 worsened to as expected from good performers.
In a cohort of patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting surgery from 2008 to 2014 in New York State, use of a 90-day mortality metric resulted in a change in hospital quality assessment for a minority of hospitals. The use of 90-day mortality may not provide additional value when evaluating institutional performance for this population.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of renal replacement therapy with haemodialysis is essential for its improvement. Remarkably, outcomes vary across centres. In addition, the methods used have important epistemological limitations, such as ignoring significant features (e.g., quality of life) or no relevance given to the patient\'s perspective in the indicator\'s selection. The present study aimed to determine the opinions and preferences of stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and managers) and establish their relative importance, considering the complexity of their interactions, to facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of haemodialysis centres.
METHODS: Successive working groups (WGs) were established using a multicriteria methodology. WG1 created a draft of criteria and sub-criteria, WG2 agreed, using a qualitative structured analysis with pre-established criteria, and WG3 was composed of three face-to-face subgroups (WG3-A, WG3-B, and WG3-C) that weighted them using two methodologies: weighted sum (WS) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Subsequently, they determined a preference for the WS or AHP results. Finally, via the Internet, WG4 weighted the criteria and sub-criteria by the method preferred by WG3, and WG5 analysed the results.
RESULTS: WG1 and WG2 identified and agreed on the following evaluation criteria: evidence-based variables (EBVs), annual morbidity, annual mortality, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). The EBVs consisted of five sub-criteria: type of vascular access, dialysis dose, haemoglobin concentration, ratio of catheter bacteraemia, and bone mineral disease. The patients rated the PROMs with greater weight than the other stakeholders in both face-to-face WG3 (WS and AHP) and WG4 via the Internet. The type of vascular access was the most valued sub-criterion. A performance matrix of each criterion and sub-criterion is presented as a reference for assessing the results based on the preferences of the stakeholders.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a multicriteria methodology allows the relative importance of the indicators to be determined, reflecting the values of the different stakeholders. In a performance matrix, the inclusion of values and intangible aspects in the evaluation could help in making clinical and organizational decisions.

Third-party platforms have emerged to support small primary care practices for calculating and reporting electronic clinical quality measures (eCQM) for federal programs like The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) and Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Yet little is known about the capabilities and limitations of electronic health record systems (EHRs) to enable data access for these programs. We connected 116 small- to medium-sized practices with seven different EHRs to popHealth, an open-source eCQM platform. We identified the prevalence of following problems with eCQM data for data extraction in seven different EHRs: (1) Lack of coded data in five of seven; (2) Incorrectly categorized data in four of seven; (3) Isosemantic data (data within the incorrect context) in four of seven; (4) Coding that could not be directly evaluated in six of seven; (5) Errors in date assignment and labeled as historical values in five of seven; and (6) Inadequate data to assign the correct code in two of seven. We recommend specific enhancements to EHR systems that can promote effective eCQM implementation and reporting to MACRA and MIPS.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QI) are mandatory in French hospitals. After a decade of use, the Ministry of Health set up an expert workgroup to enhance informed decision-making regarding currently used national QI, i.e. to propose a decision of withdrawing, revising or continuing their use. We report the development of an integrated method for a comprehensive appraisal of quality/safety indicators (QI) during their life cycle, for three purposes, quality improvement, public disclosure and regulation purposes. The method was tested on 10 national QI on use for up to 10 years to identify operational issues.
METHODS: A modified Delphi technique to select relevant criteria and a development of a mixed evaluation method by the workgroup. A \'real-life\' test on 10 national QI.
RESULTS: Twelve criteria were selected for the appraisal of QI used for regulation goals, 11 were selected for hospital improvement and seven for public disclosure. The perceived feasibility and relevance were studied including hospital workers, patients and health authorities professionals; the scientific soundness of the indicator development phase was reviewed by analyzing reference documents; the metrological performance (limited to the discriminatory power and dynamics of change during the life cycle dimensions) was analyzed on the national datasets.Applied to the 10 QI, the workgroup proposed to withdraw four of them and to modify or suspend the six others.
CONCLUSIONS: The value of the method was supported by the clear-cut conclusions and endorsement of the proposed decisions by the health authorities.

The medication process requires clear and transparent documentation in patient records. Incomplete or incorrect medication documentation may contribute to inappropriate clinical decision-making and adverse events. To comprehensively assess the quality of in-hospital medication documentation, we developed a retrospective chart review (RCR) instrument. We report on the development process, the feasibility of the instrument and describe our application of the instrument to a sample of patient records.
Cross-sectional study using an RCR instrument to evaluate paper-based, non-standardised prescription and medication administration charts (MediDocQ).
Two German university hospitals.
Records from 1361 patients admitted between April and July 2015 were evaluated.
The MediDocQ development process comprised six consecutive stages: focused literature review, web-based search, initial patient record screening, review by project advisory board, focus groups with professionals and pilot testing. The final 54-item RCR instrument covers three key components of medication documentation: (1) completeness of documented information (including prescription, medication administration and pro re nata (PRN) medication), (2) quality of transcriptions and (3) compliance with chart structure, legibility, handling of deletions and chart corrections. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values, SD, median and interquartile ranges for individual items.
Overall, 33 out of 54 items resulted in mean values above 0.75, indicating high-quality medication documentation. Documentation quality was particularly compromised for verbal and PRN orders (which involve more steps than standard orders) and when documentation was not completed at the same time as medication administration.
MediDocQ is a patient safety instrument that can be used to evaluate the quality of medication documentation and identify components of the process where intervention is required. In our setting, standardisation of medication documentation, particularly regarding medication administration and PRN medication is a priority.

BACKGROUND: In pediatric cardiac care, many centers participate in multiple, national, domain-specific registries, as a major component of their quality assessment and improvement efforts. Small cardiac programs, whose clinical activities and scale may not be well-suited to this approach, need alternative methods to assess and track quality.
METHODS: We conceived of and piloted a rapid-approach cardiac quality assessment, intended to encompass multiple aspects of the service line, in a low-volume program. The assessment incorporated previously identified measures, drawn from multiple sources, and ultimately relied on retrospective chart review.
RESULTS: A collaborative, multidisciplinary team formed and came to consensus on quality metrics pertaining to 3 chosen areas of clinical activity in the program. Despite the use of multiple different data sources and the need for manual chart review in data collection, a rich assessment of these program components was completed for presentation in 6 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: While small programs may not participate in the spectrum of cardiac care registries available, these same centers can benefit from them by adapting some of their validated metrics for use in internal, self-maintained quality reports. Our pilot of this alternative approach revealed opportunities for improved quality assessment practices; the product can serve as a baseline for future prospective assessment and reporting, as well as longitudinal internal benchmarking.