Translating Best Practices To Meaningful Quality Measures: From Measure Conceptualization to Implementation

Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders

Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Prescribing and Monitoring Patterns Among Gastroenterology Practitioners

GOALS

The aim was to quantify proton pump inhibitor (PPI) practice habits among gastroenterology (GI) practitioners.

BACKGROUND

Reports of side effects have prompted patients and practitioners alike to discontinue PPI use. Emerging evidence-based literature on PPI risks and safety seek to guide practitioners, but the impact of this literature on PPI prescribing patterns has not been evaluated.

STUDY

We performed an anonymous online survey of US GI practitioners across 6 academic and community affiliated medical centers. Demographic data including practice type and number of weekly gastroesophageal reflux disease patients seen were obtained. Survey questions evaluated practitioners' monitoring for PPI side effects, dose adjustments, and sources of information about PPI risks.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 60% (256/429). The majority of respondents were male (169, 66%) attending physicians (178, 70%) practicing general GI (63, 25%). There were 92 (36%) respondents who reported testing for PPI side effects at least once a year. Most respondents (143, 56%) reported discontinuing PPIs at least 50% of the time because of patients' concerns about PPI side effects. The majority of respondents reported getting their information regarding PPI safety from published journals (239, 98%) as well as colleagues (222, 91%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite best available evidence suggesting safety of long-term PPI use without routine monitoring, stopping PPIs and monitoring for potential side effects occurs frequently, even within a cohort of mostly academic GI practitioners. Alternative strategies are needed to improve adherence to best practices, especially since gastroenterologists often serve as PPI experts.

Development of quality indicators for the diagnosis and management of achalasia

BACKGROUND

The management of achalasia has improved due to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. However, variability in care delivery remains and no established measures defining quality of care for this population exist. We aimed to use formal methodology to establish quality indicators for achalasia patients.

METHODS

Quality indicator concepts were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines and clinical experts. Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, experts in achalasia independently ranked proposed concepts in a two-round modified Delphi process based on 1) importance, 2) scientific acceptability, 3) usability, and 4) feasibility. Highly valid measures required strict agreement (≧ 80% of panelists) in the range of 7-9 for across all four categories.

KEY RESULTS

There were 17 experts who rated 26 proposed quality indicator topics. In round one, 2 (8%) quality measures were rated valid. In round two, 19 measures were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts rated 10 (53%) of these measures as valid, resulting in a total of 12 quality indicators. Two measures pertained to patient education and five to diagnosis, including discussing treatment options with risk and benefits and using the most recent version of the Chicago Classification to define achalasia phenotypes, respectively. Other indicators pertained to treatment options, such as the use of botulinum toxin for those not considered surgical candidates and management of reflux following achalasia treatment.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Using a robust methodology, achalasia quality indicators were identified, which can form the basis for establishing quality gaps and generating fully specified quality measures.