Model for improvement - Part Two: Measurement and feedback for quality improvement efforts

Measurement and feedback are fundamental to quality improvement. There is a knowledge gap among health care professionals in knowing how to measure the impact of their quality improvement projects and how to use these data to improve care. This article presents a pragmatic approach to measurement and feedback for quality improvement efforts in local health care settings, such as hospitals or clinical practices. The authors include evidence-based strategies from health care and other industries, augmented with practical examples from the authors' collective years of experience designing measurement and feedback strategies.

Cardiovascular medication errors in children

OBJECTIVES

We sought to describe pediatric cardiovascular medication errors and to determine patients and medications with more-frequently reported and/or more-harmful errors.

METHODS

We analyzed cardiovascular medication error reports from 2003-2004 for patients <18 years of age, from the US Pharmacopeia MEDMARX database. Reports were stratified according to harm score (A, near miss; B-D, error, no harm; E-I, harmful error). Proportions of harmful reports were determined according to drug class and age group. "High-risk" drugs were defined as antiarrhythmics, antihypertensives, digoxin, and calcium channel blockers.

RESULTS

A total of 147 facilities submitted 821 reports with community hospitals predominating (70%). Mean patient age was 4 years (median: 0.9 years). The most common error locations were NICUs, general care units, PICUs, pediatric units, and inpatient pharmacies. Drug administration, particularly improper dosing, was implicated most commonly. Severity analysis showed 5% "near misses," 91% errors without harm, and 4% harmful errors, with no reported fatalities. A total of 893 medications were cited in 821 reports. Diuretics were cited most frequently, followed by antihypertensives, angiotensin inhibitors, beta-adrenergic receptor blockers, digoxin, and calcium channel blockers. Calcium channel blockers, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, antiarrhythmics, and digoxin had the largest proportions of harmful events, although the values were not statistically significantly different from those for other drug classes. Infants <1 year of age accounted for 50% of reports. Proportions of harmful events did not differ according to age.

CONCLUSIONS

Infants <1 year of age were most frequently reported in cardiovascular medication errors reaching inpatients, in a national, voluntary, error-reporting database. Proportions of harmful errors were not significantly different by age or cardiovascular medication. Most errors were related to medication administration, largely due to improper dosing.

Pediatric vaccination errors: application of the "5 rights" framework to a national error reporting database

Little is known about vaccination errors. We analyzed 607 outpatient pediatric vaccination error reports from MEDMARX, a nationwide, voluntary medication error reporting system, occurring from 2003 to 2006. We used the "5 Rights" framework (right vaccine, time, dose, route, and patient) to determine whether vaccination error types were predictable. We found that "wrong vaccine" errors were more common among look-alike/sound-alike groups than among vaccines with no look-alike/sound-alike group. Scheduled vaccines were more often involved in "wrong time" errors than seasonal and intermittent vaccines. "Wrong dose" errors were more common for vaccines whose dose is weight-based and age-based than for vaccines whose dose is uniform. "Wrong route" and "wrong patient" errors were rare. In this largest-ever analysis of pediatric vaccination errors, error types were associated with predictable vaccine-related human factors challenges. Efforts to reduce pediatric vaccination errors should focus on these human factors.

Medication errors in the ambulatory treatment of pediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Of 361 reports of errors involving pediatric attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from 2003 to 2005, 82% reached the patient but were not harmful; more serious errors were rare.

Does this child have appendicitis?

CONTEXT

Evaluation of abdominal pain in children can be difficult. Rapid, accurate diagnosis of appendicitis in children reduces the morbidity of this common cause of pediatric abdominal pain. Clinical evaluation may help identify (1) which children with abdominal pain and a likely diagnosis of appendicitis should undergo immediate surgical consultation for potential appendectomy and (2) which children with equivocal presentations of appendicitis should undergo further diagnostic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the precision and accuracy of symptoms, signs, and basic laboratory test results for evaluating children with possible appendicitis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE (January 1966-March 2007) and the Cochrane Database, as well as physical examination textbooks and bibliographies of retrieved articles, yielding 2521 potentially relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they (1) provided primary data on children aged 18 years or younger in whom the diagnosis of appendicitis was considered; (2) presented medical history data, physical examination findings, or basic laboratory data; and (3) confirmed or excluded appendicitis by surgical pathologic findings, clinical observation, or follow-up. Of 256 full-text articles examined, 42 met inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Twenty-five of 42 studies were assigned a quality level of 3 or better. Data from these studies were independently extracted by 2 reviewers.

RESULTS

In children with abdominal pain, fever was the single most useful sign associated with appendicitis; a fever increases the likelihood of appendicitis (likelihood ratio [LR], 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-4.8) and conversely, its absence decreases the chance of appendicitis (LR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.64). In select groups of children, in whom the diagnosis of appendicitis is suspected and evaluation undertaken, rebound tenderness triples the odds of appendicitis (summary LR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.3-3.9), while its absence reduces the likelihood (summary LR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.14-0.55). Midabdominal pain migrating to the right lower quadrant (LR range, 1.9-3.1) increases the risk of appendicitis more than right lower quadrant pain itself (summary LR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5). A white blood cell count of less than 10,000/microL decreases the likelihood of appendicitis (summary LR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.17-0.30), as does an absolute neutrophil count of 6750/microL or lower (LR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.16). Symptoms and signs are most useful in combination, particularly for identifying children who do not require further evaluation or intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the clinical examination does not establish a diagnosis of appendicitis with certainty, it is useful in determining which children with abdominal pain warrant immediate surgical evaluation for consideration of appendectomy and which children may warrant further diagnostic evaluation. More child-specific, age-stratified data are needed to improve the utility of the clinical examination for diagnosing appendicitis in children.

Hospitalizations with primary versus secondary discharge diagnoses of asthma: implications for pediatric asthma surveillance

Asthma-related hospitalizations are sentinel events in pediatric asthma surveillance. Little is known about hospitalizations that are assigned a secondary discharge diagnosis of asthma (SDDA). The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) was analyzed to compare hospitalizations with primary versus secondary discharge diagnoses of asthma. Most hospitalizations with SDDA had primary diagnoses of respiratory origin. Surveillance systems tracking the hospitalization burden of pediatric asthma should consider including selected hospitalizations with a secondary diagnosis of asthma.

Open access in primary care: results of a North Carolina pilot project

OBJECTIVE

Appointment delays impede access to primary health care. By reducing appointment delays, open access (OA) scheduling may improve access to and the quality of primary health care. The objective of this pilot study was to assess the potential impact of OA on practice and patient outcomes by using pilot-study data from 4 North Carolina primary care practices.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time-series pilot study of 4 North Carolina primary care practices (2 family medicine and 2 pediatric practices) participating in a quality-improvement (QI) collaborative from May 2001 to May 2002. The year-long collaborative comprised 25 practices and consisted of three 2-day meetings led by expert faculty, monthly data feedback, and monthly conference calls. Our main outcome measures were appointment delays, appointment no-shows, patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and staff satisfaction during the 12-month study period.

RESULTS

Providers in all 4 practices successfully implemented OA. On average, providers reduced their delay to the third available preventive care appointment from 36 to 4 days. No-show rates declined (first quarter [Q1] rate: 16%; fourth quarter [Q4] rate: 11%; no-show reduction: 5% [95% confidence interval: 1%, 10%]), and overall patient satisfaction improved (Q1: 45% rated overall visit quality as excellent; Q4: 61% rated overall visit quality as excellent; change in satisfaction: 16% [95% confidence interval: 0.2%, 30%]). Continuity of care followed a similar pattern of improvement, but the change was not statistically significant. Staff satisfaction neither improved nor declined.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that primary care practices can implement OA successfully by using QI-collaborative methods. These results provide preliminary evidence that OA may improve practice and patient outcomes in primary care. These analyses should be repeated in larger groups of practices with longer follow-up.

Preparticipation Physical Evaluations for High School Athletes:Time for a New Game Plan

For several decades, physicians have conducted preparticipation physical evaluations (PPEs) hoping to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with high school sports. We argue in this Brief Commentary that the PPE as currently practiced is ineffective and illogical. We propose a research agenda that would provide data to more effectively promote adolescent health both on and off the playing field.