BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission uses nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex, cesarean delivery (NTSV-CD) rates to assess hospitals\' perinatal care quality through the Cesarean Birth measurement (PC-02). However, these rates are not risk-adjusted for maternal health factors, putting this measure at odds with the risk adjustment paradigm of most publicly reported hospital quality measures. Here, the authors tested whether risk adjustment for readily documented maternal risk factors affected hospital-level NTSV-CD rates in a large health system.
METHODS: Included were all consecutive NTSV pregnancies from January 2019 to April 2023 across 10 hospitals in one health system. Logistic regression, adjusting for age, obesity, diabetes, and hypertensive disorders. was used to calculate hospital-level risk-adjusted NTSV-CD rates by multiplying observed vs. expected ratios for each hospital by the systemwide unadjusted NTSV-CD rate. The authors calculated intrahospital risk differences between unadjusted and risk-adjusted rates and calculated the percentage of hospitals qualifying for different reporting status after risk adjustment using the 30% Joint Commission reporting threshold rate.
RESULTS: Of 23,866 pregnancies, 6,550 (27.4%) had cesarean deliveries. Across 10 hospitals, the number of deliveries ranged from 393 to 7,671, with unadjusted NTSV-CD rates ranging from 21.0% to 30.5%. Risk-adjusted NTSV-CD rates ranged from 21.5% to 30.4%, with absolute intrahospital differences in risk-adjusted vs. unadjusted rates ranging from -1.33% (indicating lower rate after risk adjustment) to 3.37% (indicating higher rate after risk adjustment). Three of 10 (30.0%) hospitals qualified for different reporting statuses after risk adjustment.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk adjustment for age, obesity, diabetes, and hypertensive disorders is feasible and resulted in meaningful changes in hospital-level NTSV-CD rates with potentially impactful consequences for hospitals near The Joint Commission reporting threshold.

BACKGROUND: Transplant center report cards are publicly available and used by regulators, insurance payers, and importantly patients and families.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the variability in reported public performance ratings of pediatric and adult heart transplant centers.
METHODS: Program-specific reports from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2017-2021 were used to evaluate stability, volatility, and reliability of 3 publicly reported ratings: waitlist survival (WS), getting to a faster transplant (FT), and post-transplantation graft failure (GF).
RESULTS: There were 112 adult and 55 pediatric centers. Over the study period, nearly all centers (98%) had at least 1 change in rating in at least 1 of the tiers. The average time to the first rating change of any magnitude was 12-18 months for all tiers and centers. For adult centers, the most volatile rating was WS (SD: 0.77), followed by GF (SD: 0.76) and then FT (SD: 0.57). For pediatric centers, the most volatile rating was WS (SD: 0.79), followed by both GF (SD: 0.66) and FT (SD: 0.68), which were equally volatile. All tiers except adult FT had an estimated Fleiss\'s kappa <0.20, indicating poor agreement/consistency across the study period. In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient for all tiers was <0.50, indicating poor reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: The current 5-tier reporting of transplant center performance is highly volatile and has poor reliability and consistency. Given the unintended and significant negative consequences these reports can have, critical revision of these ratings is warranted.

The report of death cases is an important source of information for cause analysis and monitoring of trends, which can reflect the death situation and characteristics of a population in a relatively accurate manner. It helps understand the health status of the population and the level of healthcare. The special deployment of case review for in-hospital deaths is not only the high priority for health authorities in terms of quality and safety of medical care but also a practical implementation of the concept that values people and life. Currently, there is a lack of scientific and standardized evaluation for the review of death cases in various specialties, excluding maternal and neonatal cases. To standardize the quality control and management of death cases in medical institutions, the Guidelines for quality control and management of death cases in medical institutions (2023) has been developed by the Hunan Province Resuscitation Quality Control Center. The members of the working group of this guideline visited medical institutions, conducted research, reviewed relevant guidelines from domestic and international sources, and integrated clinical experience to form a preliminary consensus. This consensus was submitted to the expert group for multiple discussions, underwent several revisions, and finally, it was sent to the experts in the form of a questionnaire for feedback. The guidelines clarify the scope, data collection, and quality control requirements for death case quality control, providing a reference for the quality control and management of death cases in medical institutions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare facilities have implemented contingency plans to minimize the consequences of this pathology however, the deployment and results of these contingency plans are scarcely shared.
To describe the implementation of the contingency plan in the social and health care in the COVID-19 pandemic in the Public Hospital of Monforte (Lugo, Spain) and to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures included in this plan.
Phenomenological sampling conducted between March 10 and May 15, 2020. Evaluation qualitative assessment by an external quality improvement team of the Galician Health Service (SERGAS), based on the Practicum Direct rapid structured checklist in risk management, organizational management, and evaluation of decision making. As outcome indicators, we assessed the number of hospital admissions, number of PCRs performed, telephone attention to social and health social-healthcare patients, number of hospitalizations avoided and estimation of their direct cost.
After assessing and managing the risks, an information security plan was developed and solutions to minimize complications in our patients derived from this pandemic. An emergency decision making team was created, as well as an employee communication mechanism for employees through standardized documents and documentation channels.
The adaptation of the Practicum Direct rapid model to the healthcare setting is a useful and easy-to-apply tool that allows us to identify weak points and areas for improvement in our Service and thus to strengthen patient care in all clinical areas, improving the quality of care.

US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known.
To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts.
Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year.
Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type.
A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year).
Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

UNASSIGNED: Public health surveillance data do not always capture all cases, due in part to test availability and health care seeking behaviour. Our study aimed to estimate under-ascertainment multipliers for each step in the reporting chain for COVID-19 in Toronto, Canada.
UNASSIGNED: We applied stochastic modeling to estimate these proportions for the period from March 2020 (the beginning of the pandemic) through to May 23, 2020, and for three distinct windows with different laboratory testing criteria within this period.
UNASSIGNED: For each laboratory-confirmed symptomatic case reported to Toronto Public Health during the entire period, the estimated number of COVID-19 infections in the community was 18 (5th and 95th percentile: 12, 29). The factor most associated with under-reporting was the proportion of those who sought care that received a test.
UNASSIGNED: Public health officials should use improved estimates to better understand the burden of COVID-19 and other similar infections.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of countries are using or planning to use quality indicators (QIs) in residential long-term care. Knowledge regarding the current state of evidence on usage and methodological soundness of publicly reported clinical indicators of quality in nursing homes is needed. The study aimed to answer the questions: 1) Which health-related QIs for residents in long-term care are currently publicly reported internationally? and 2) What is the methodological quality of these indicators?
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Embase in October 2019 and last updated on August 31st, 2022. Grey literature was also searched. We used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument for the methodological quality assessment of the identified QIs.
RESULTS: Of 23\'344 identified records, 22 articles and one report describing 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we found 17 websites publishing information on QIs. We identified eight countries publicly reporting a total of 99 health-related QIs covering 31 themes. Each country used between six and 31 QIs. The most frequently reported indicators were pressure ulcers, falls, physical restraints, and weight loss. For most QI sets, we found basic information regarding e.g., purpose, definition of the indicators, risk-adjustment, and stakeholders\' involvement in QIs\' selection. Little up to date information was found regarding validity, reliability and discriminative power of the QIs. Only the Australian indicator set reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% or higher in all four AIRE instrument domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Little information is available to the public and researchers for the evaluation of a large number of publicly reported QIs in the residential long-term care sector. Better reporting is needed on the methodological quality of QIs in this setting, whether they are meant for internal quality improvement or provider comparison.

UNASSIGNED: Governments across the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region have prioritised dashboards for reporting COVID-19 data. The ubiquitous use of dashboards for public reporting is a novel phenomenon.
UNASSIGNED: This study explores the development of COVID-19 dashboards during the first year of the pandemic and identifies common barriers, enablers and lessons from the experiences of teams responsible for their development.
UNASSIGNED: We applied multiple methods to identify and recruit COVID-19 dashboard teams, using a purposive, quota sampling approach. Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from April to June 2021. Using elaborative coding and thematic analysis, we derived descriptive and explanatory themes from the interview data. A validation workshop was held with study participants in June 2021.
UNASSIGNED: Eighty informants participated, representing 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams across the WHO European Region. Most dashboards were launched swiftly during the first months of the pandemic, February to May 2020. The urgency, intense workload, limited human resources, data and privacy constraints and public scrutiny were common challenges in the initial development stage. Themes related to barriers or enablers were identified, pertaining to the pre-pandemic context, pandemic itself, people and processes and software, data and users. Lessons emerged around the themes of simplicity, trust, partnership, software and data and change.
UNASSIGNED: COVID-19 dashboards were developed in a learning-by-doing approach. The experiences of teams reveal that initial underpreparedness was offset by high-level political endorsement, the professionalism of teams, accelerated data improvements and immediate support with commercial software solutions. To leverage the full potential of dashboards for health data reporting, investments are needed at the team, national and pan-European levels.

BACKGROUND: National initiatives launched to improve the quality of care have grown exponentially over the last decade. Public reporting, accreditation and governmental inspection form the basis for quality in Flemish (Belgian) hospitals. Due to the lack of evidence for these national initiatives and the questions concerning their sustainability, our research aims to identify cornerstones of a sustainable national quality policy for acute-care hospitals based on international expert opinion.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 renowned international quality and patient safety experts selected by purposive sampling. Interviews focussed on participants\' perspectives and their recommendations for a future, sustainable quality policy. Inductive analysis was carried out with themes being generated from the data using the constant comparison method.
RESULTS: Three major and five minor themes were identified and integrated into a framework as a basis for national quality policies. Quality culture, minimum requirements for quality education and quality control as well as continuous learning and improvement act as cornerstones of this framework.
CONCLUSIONS: Complementary to the current national policy, this study demonstrated the need for profound attention to quality cultures in acute-care hospitals. Policymakers need to provide a control system and minimum requirements for quality education for all healthcare workers. A model for continuous learning and improvement with data feedback loops has to be installed in each hospital to obtain a sustainable quality system. This framework can inspire policymakers to further develop bottom-up initiatives in co-governance with all relevant stakeholders adapted to individual hospitals\' context.