Clinical Indices to Drive Quality Improvement in Otolaryngology

The Type 1 Diabetes Composite Score: An Innovative Metric for Measuring Patient Care Outcomes Beyond Hemoglobin A1c

Introduction

Patient outcomes resulting from optimal type 1 diabetes (T1D) care have historically focused on driving a single metric, hemoglobin A_1c. Our objectives were to design, build, and launch an aggregate clinical indicator that comprehensively reflects patient management status beyond hemoglobin A_1c alone. This project aimed to show proof of principle that an aggregate score comprised of T1D outcome metrics could be built to track quality performance.

Methods

We established an electronic medical record-based diabetes registry and utilized its population health modules to design and build this diabetes care metric. Elements representing optimal diabetes management, as defined by current guidelines and expert opinion, were identified. Nine elements fall into categories of management tools, care assessments, and complications risk. The Type 1 Diabetes Composite Score (T1DCS) aggregates these outcome measures to reflect the overall diabetes care status for each patient. Higher scores suggest better management and overall improved patient health.

Results

We launched this metric build in November 2018 and applied the scoring to our T1D population (≈1,900 patients). The T1DCS quickly provides a summary of current diabetes management status. T1DCS viewed over the registry cohort demonstrates a normal distribution, and scores improved from March to September 2019, reflecting better care and outcomes, and illustrating the potential to track program effectiveness.

Conclusions

The T1DCS is a useful metric to evaluate the clinical status of T1D patients, assess the capability of a clinical program to achieve optimal diabetes outcomes, identify patient diversity opportunities, and document outcome improvement as a novel comprehensive quality measure.

The diabetes care index: A novel metric to assess delivery of optimal type 1 diabetes care

OBJECTIVES

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) have outlined standards for best practices in providing optimal diabetes care to children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Our objectives were to design a metric that evaluated delivery of optimal diabetes care and to use this metric to drive improvement within our diabetes program.

METHODS

Using published guidelines, we identified 11 elements of optimal diabetes care that should be reliably delivered at our institution as standard-of-care. We utilized our electronic medical record to aid in data collection and to notify staff when to deliver specific care elements (eg, lipid collection, depression screening, etc.). We designed the T1D Care Index (T1DCI), a metric which aggregates missed opportunities to deliver elements of optimal diabetes care over a given period into a cumulative score, with a lower T1DCI reflecting better care delivery and improved program performance.

RESULTS

Tracking the T1DCI permitted recognition of areas to focus on quality improvement efforts, guided interventions to improve processes for care delivery, and helped determine the allocation of time and resources. Interventions resulted in improvement of care delivery across some elements of care. Overall, we observed a 26% reduction in the T1DCI after 12 months of utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The T1DCI is a powerful metric to evaluate the ability of our diabetes program to standardize, quantify, and monitor delivery of optimal diabetes care to children with T1D, and to drive our program toward zero missed opportunities for quality care delivery.

A Celiac Care Index Improves Care of Pediatric Patients Newly Diagnosed with Celiac Disease

OBJECTIVES

To describe quality improvement efforts to reduce variability in the care of children diagnosed with celiac disease through use of an institutional patient registry and a chronic care index.

STUDY DESIGN

An institutional patient registry tracked rates of follow-up visits and repeat serologic testing. A Celiac Care Index that included anthropometrics, biopsy expectations, dietician consultation, and baseline laboratory evaluation was developed to standardize evaluation at diagnosis. Provider education sessions communicated expectations for this standard of care and order sets within the electronic medical record simplified test collection. Data was recorded and reviewed weekly and structured communications with providers were provided biweekly.

RESULTS

Adherence with follow-up expectations (77%-89% P = .03) and repeat serologic testing (50%-90% P < .0001) significantly increased during the study period. Adherence with completion of the Celiac Care Index resulted in significant improvement in obtaining complete blood count (80%-98% P < .0001), iron (25%-78% P < .0001), ferritin (34%-80% P < .0001), alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (74%-96% P < .0001), thyroid-stimulating hormone (64%-90% P < .0001), vitamin D (36%-83% P < .0001), and hepatitis B immune status (30%-80% P < .0001). Iron deficiency demonstrated by low ferritin levels was common (41%) and a high rate of nonimmunity to hepatitis B (70%) was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The Celiac Care Index improved adherence with published care recommendations and reduced variability in baseline evaluation at diagnosis. Laboratory test results indicate further studies are needed to evaluate these recommendations.

Lung Transplant Index: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Limited long-term survival is a recognized problem in adolescent/young adult lung transplant recipients. A quality improvement (QI) initiative included the development of a Lung Transplant Index (LTI) composed of key elements that we used as a comprehensive approach to screen and identify potential harms in this at-risk patient population.

Methods

A single-center, uncontrolled QI study was completed from January 2014 to February 2019. The elements of the LTI are events that should have occurred within the most recent 12 months. If an element did not occur, it was counted as a missed element of preventing harm and summated later serving as the LTI score. Implementation of the LTI occurred on January 1, 2015, with a retrospective chart review of patients seen in clinic the prior year serving as baseline measures for comparison.

Results

The year before implementing the LTI, numerous opportunities failed to identify preventable harm in our adolescent/young adult lung transplant population. The LTI resulted in a sustained reduction of these missed opportunities without negatively influencing patient/family satisfaction with lengthening of the clinic visit.

Conclusions

A single-center QI initiative identified preventable harms in an adolescent/young adult lung transplant population and reduced the number of preventable harm elements not performed. Future work is needed to determine if this type of QI initiative is associated with less healthcare utilization.