Assessing the Quality of Osteoporosis Care in Practice

Composite measures of quality of health care: Evidence mapping of methodology and reporting

Background

Quality indicators are used to quantify the quality of care. A large number of quality indicators makes assessment of overall quality difficult, time consuming and impractical. There is consequently an increasing interest for composite measures based on a combination of multiple indicators.

Objective

To examine the use of different approaches to construct composite measures of quality of care and to assess the use of methodological considerations and justifications.

Methods

We conducted a literature search on PubMed and EMBASE databases (latest update 1 December 2020). For each publication, we extracted information on the weighting and aggregation methodology that had been used to construct composite indicator(s).

Results

A total of 2711 publications were identified of which 145 were included after a screening process. Opportunity scoring with equal weights was the most used approach (86/145, 59%) followed by all-or-none scoring (48/145, 33%). Other approaches regarding aggregation or weighting of individual indicators were used in 32 publications (22%). The rationale for selecting a specific type of composite measure was reported in 36 publications (25%), whereas 22 papers (15%) addressed limitations regarding the composite measure.

Conclusion

Opportunity scoring and all-or-none scoring are the most frequently used approaches when constructing composite measures of quality of care. The attention towards the rationale and limitations of the composite measures appears low.

Discussion

Considering the widespread use and the potential implications for decision-making of composite measures, a high level of transparency regarding the construction process of the composite and the functionality of the measures is crucial.

Association of Regional Practice Environment Intensity and the Ability of Internists to Practice High-Value Care After Residency

IMPORTANCE

Use of health care services and physician practice patterns have been shown to vary widely across the United States. Although practice patterns-in particular, physicians' ability to provide high-quality, high-value care-develop during training, the association of a physician's regional practice environment with that ability is less well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between health care intensity in the region where physicians practice and their ability to practice high-value care, specifically for physicians whose practice environment changed due to relocation after residency.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included a national sample of 3896 internal medicine physicians who took the 2002 American Board of Internal Medicine initial certification examination followed approximately 1 decade (April 21, 2011, to May 7, 2015) later by the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) examination. At the time of the MOC examination, 2714 of these internists were practicing in a new region. Data were analyzed from March 6, 2016, to May 21, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Intensity of care in the Dartmouth Atlas hospital referral region (HRR), measured by per-enrollee end-of-life physician visits (primary) and current practice type (secondary).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcome, a physician's ability to practice high-value care, was assessed using the Appropriately Conservative Management (ACM) score on the MOC examination, measuring performance across all questions for which the correct answer was the most conservative option. The exposure, regional health care intensity, was measured as per-enrollee end-of-life physician visits in the Dartmouth Atlas HRR of the physician's practice.

RESULTS

Among the 3860 participating internists included in the analysis (2030 men [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 45.6 [4.5] years), those who moved to regions in the quintile of highest health care intensity had an ACM score 0.22 SD lower (95% CI, -0.32 to -0.12) than internists who moved to regions in the quintile of lowest intensity, controlling for postresidency ACM scores. This difference reflected scoring in the 44th compared with the 53rd percentile of all examinees. This association was mildly attenuated (0.18 SD less; 95% CI, -0.28 to -0.09) after adjustment for physician and practice characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that practice patterns of internists who relocate after residency training appear to migrate toward norms of the new region. The demands of practicing in high-intensity regions may erode the ability to practice high-value conservative care.

Age at First Osteoporosis Screening Among Older Women and Men: Is Bone Mineral Density Measurement Ordered Timely?

BACKGROUND

US National Osteoporosis Foundation has specified age cut-offs for osteoporosis screening in older women and men.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated whether Turkish seniors undergo their first ever osteoporosis screening early, on time or late.

METHODS

We determined the age of older women and men at their first-time Bone Mass Densitometry (BMD) testing using the medical records of a geriatric outpatient unit. The timing of the BMD test was considered ''late'' when performed after the age of 65 and 70 in women and men, respectively. An "early" screening was defined as having a BMD measurement before these age cut-offs.

RESULTS

We included 481 individuals in the study (mean age: 74.5±6.5 years, women: 62%). On admission, around 18% of the sample could give no definite information and another 35% had never been assessed for osteoporosis. Among those with a past screening, 64.8% reported comorbid osteoporosis and 33% reported no osteoporosis. Mean age of the first-time BMD measurement was 67.4±7.7 years. The first-time BMD measurement was on time in 9.7%, early in 37.4% and late in 52.9% of the subjects. Half of the individuals with a self-reported osteoporosis diagnosis were non-osteoporotic on a new BMD ordered following the geriatric assessment. Multimorbidity (≥3), parental hip fracture, and smoking were the independent predictors of being early screened.

CONCLUSION

We found two-thirds of women and men unscreened for osteoporosis despite being indicated by age. Early and late screening were both prevalent. Self-reported osteoporosis diagnosis was mostly inconsistent with BMD testing in our sample.

Osteoporosis knowledge assessment and osteoporosis education recommendations in the health professions

A previous systematic review on osteoporosis knowledge published showed that only several studies investigated osteoporosis knowledge in health professionals, and it found that their knowledge was not as adequate and sufficient as it should be. Since then, studies published on osteoporosis knowledge among health professionals have also assessed and found that they still do not have adequate and sufficient osteoporosis knowledge. To increase and improve osteoporosis knowledge among health professionals, recommendations in osteoporosis education in the health professions, including the application of the cognitive load theory, online learning, problem-based learning, practical learning, simulation-based learning, interactive learning, and feedback are covered in order to ensure health professionals can have adequate and sufficient osteoporosis knowledge to best prevent and treat individuals with the disease.