Psychometric analysis of the TRANSIT quality indicators for cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care

Concordance of care processes between medical records and patient self-administered questionnaires

Background

Despite the increasing use of medical records to measure quality of care, studies have shown that their validity is suboptimal. The objective of this study is to assess the concordance of cardiovascular care processes evaluated through medical record review and patient self-administered questionnaires (SAQs) using ten quality indicators (TRANSIT indicators). These indicators were developed as part of a participatory research program (TRANSIT study) dedicated to TRANSforming InTerprofessional clinical practices to improve cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in primary care.

Methods

For every patient participating in the TRANSIT study, the compliance to each indicator (individual scores) as well as the mean compliance to all indicators of a category (subscale scores) and to the complete set of ten indicators (overall scale score) were established. Concordance between results obtained using medical records and patient SAQs was assessed by prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) coefficients as well as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were used to identify patients’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with agreement between the two data sources.

Results

The TRANSIT study was conducted in a primary care setting among patients (n = 759) with multimorbidity, at moderate (16%) and high risk (83%) of cardiovascular diseases. Quality of care, as measured by the TRANSIT indicators, varied substantially between medical records and patient SAQ. Concordance between the two data sources, as measured by ICCs (95% CI), was poor for the subscale (0.18 [0.08–0.27] to 0.46 [0.40–0.52]) and overall (0.46 [0.40–0.53]) compliance scale scores. GLMM showed that agreement was not affected by patients’ characteristics.

Conclusions

In quality improvement strategies, researchers must acknowledge that care processes may not be consistently recorded in medical records. They must also be aware that the evaluation of the quality of care may vary depending on the source of information, the clinician responsible of documenting the interventions, and the domain of care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0979-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lasso Regression for the Prediction of Intermediate Outcomes Related to Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Using the TRANSIT Quality Indicators

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality are largely influenced by poor control of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. Process indicators are essential to monitor the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies. However, process indicators should be validated by demonstrating their ability to predict desirable outcomes. The objective of this study is to identify an effective method for building prediction models and to assess the predictive validity of the TRANSIT indicators.

METHODS

On the basis of blood pressure readings and laboratory test results at baseline, the TRANSIT study population was divided into 3 overlapping subpopulations: uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled dyslipidemia, and uncontrolled diabetes. A classic statistical method, a sparse machine learning technique, and a hybrid method combining both were used to build prediction models for whether a patient reached therapeutic targets for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes. The final models' performance for predicting these intermediate outcomes was established using cross-validated area under the curves (cvAUC).

RESULTS

At baseline, 320, 247, and 303 patients were uncontrolled for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. Among the 3 techniques used to predict reaching therapeutic targets, the hybrid method had a better discriminative capacity (cvAUCs=0.73 for hypertension, 0.64 for dyslipidemia, and 0.79 for diabetes) and succeeded in identifying indicators with a better capacity for predicting intermediate outcomes related to cardiovascular disease prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though this study was conducted in a complex population of patients, a set of 5 process indicators were found to have good predictive validity based on the hybrid method.