Lack of relationship between the Cleveland Health Quality Choice project and decreased inpatient mortality in Cleveland

Factors associated with the effectiveness of immersive virtual therapy in alleviating depressive symptoms during sub-acute post-stroke rehabilitation: a gender comparison

BACKGROUND

The large-scale digitalization of healthcare has induced shifts in patient preferences, prompting the introduction of therapies utilizing novel technologies. In this context, the targeted application of these interventions is deemed as crucial as assessing their overall effectiveness. The aim of this study was to characterize the patient profile who benefited most from immersive virtual reality (VR) therapy.

METHODS

Based on the results from the previous randomized controlled trial study, we employed an exploratory study design to determine the factors associated with the most significant mental health improvement. A secondary analysis was conducted on a sample of 83 participants, with further analysis of participants with elevated depression symptoms, as indicated by a score of > 10 on the 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30). Both groups participated in a similar post-stroke rehabilitation program; however, the experimental group also received additional VR therapy through an immersive VR garden intervention. The GDS-30 was used to assess mood and depressive symptoms, and sociodemographic, cognitive status as well as stroke-related variables were considered as potential factors.

RESULTS

In both the experimental (mean change 5.3) and control groups (mean change 2.8), interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms, with a more pronounced difference in the experimental group (p < 0.05). When examining gender differences, women exhibited greater improvement in the GDS, with mean between-group differences of 5.0 for the total sample and 6.0 for those with elevated depressive symptoms. Sociodemographic factors, cognitive status, and time from stroke were not found to be factors that alter the effectiveness of VR therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

While VR therapy as an adjunctive treatment for post-stroke rehabilitation seems especially effective for women with elevated depressive symptoms, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the study's small experimental group size. Traditional methods showed reduced effectiveness in women compared to men; thus, developing technologically advanced and gender-specific approaches can lead to more tailored therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03830372 (February 5, 2019).

Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020)

BACKGROUND

Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence.

METHODS

Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.

Public Performance Metrics: Driving Physician Motivation and Performance

Introduction

As providers transition from “fee-for-service” to “pay-for-performance” models, focus has shifted to improving performance. This trend extends to the emergency department (ED) where visits continue to increase across the United States. Our objective was to determine whether displaying public performance metrics of physician triage data could drive intangible motivators and improve triage performance in the ED.

Methods

This is a single institution, time-series performance study on a physician-in-triage system. Individual physician baseline metrics—number of patients triaged and dispositioned per shift—were obtained and prominently displayed with identifiable labels during each quarterly physician group meeting. Physicians were informed that metrics would be collected and displayed quarterly and that there would be no bonuses, punishments, or required training; physicians were essentially free to do as they wished. It was made explicit that the goal was to increase the number triaged, and while the number dispositioned would also be displayed, it would not be a focus, thereby acting as this study’s control. At the end of one year, we analyzed metrics.

Results

The group’s average number of patients triaged per shift were as follows: Q1–29.2; Q2–31.9; Q3–34.4; Q4–36.5 (Q1 vs Q4, p < 0.00001). The average numbers of patients dispositioned per shift were Q1–16.4; Q2–17.8; Q3–16.9; Q4–15.3 (Q1 vs Q4, p = 0.14). The top 25% of Q1 performers increased their average numbers triaged from Q1–36.5 to Q4–40.3 (ie, a statistically insignificant increase of 3.8 patients per shift [p = 0.07]). The bottom 25% of Q1 performers, on the other hand, increased their averages from Q1–22.4 to Q4–34.5 (ie, a statistically significant increase of 12.2 patients per shift [p = 0.0013]).

Conclusion

Public performance metrics can drive intangible motivators (eg, purpose, mastery, and peer pressure), which can be an effective, low-cost strategy to improve individual performance, achieve institutional goals, and thrive in the pay-for-performance era.

Relation Between Statewide Hospital Performance Reports on Myocardial Infarction and Cardiovascular Outcomes

Healthcare systems may be judged on quality of care and access to health services. Studies on the association of hospital quality of care scores and clinical outcomes have yielded mixed results. With the help of a richer and more representative database, the aim of our study was to shed light on these inconsistencies. We examined the association of 4 process of care scores (prescription of aspirin, β blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker used for left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and an overall composite score) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), reported in the Hospital Performance Reports, with 30-day and 1-year rates of readmission for AMI and cardiovascular (CV) death. Clinical outcomes were from the Myocardial Infarction Data Acquisition System, an administrative database that comprises all patient CV disease admissions to acute care hospitals in New Jersey. CV death was related with overall score (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.821, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.726 to 0.930, p = 0.002) at 30 days and with all 4 scores at 1 year (OR ranging from 0.829 to 0.997, p <0.01). Readmission due to AMI was associated with the overall score (OR 0.789, 95% CI 0.691 to 0.902, p <0.0001) and the aspirin score (OR 0.995, 95% CI 0.990 to 1, p = 0.046) at 30 days. Low hospital performance scores for AMI were associated with increased CV death and readmission for AMI. In conclusion, healthcare providers should allocate their resources to improving hospital performance to decrease AMI case fatality, AMI readmissions, and CV-related healthcare spending.

The impact of Public Reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To assess both qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of Public Reporting (PR) on clinical outcomes, we carried out a systematic review of published studies on this topic.

Methods

Pubmed, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched to identify studies published from 1991 to 2014 that investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes and comprehensively described the PR mechanism and the study design adopted. Among the clinical outcomes identified, meta-analysis was performed for overall mortality rate which quantitative data were exhaustively reported in a sufficient number of studies. Two reviewers conducted all data extraction independently and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The same reviewers evaluated also the quality of the studies using a GRADE approach.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included. Mainly, the effect of PR on clinical outcomes was positive. Meta-analysis regarding overall mortality included, in a context of high heterogeneity, 10 studies with a total of 1,840,401 experimental events and 3,670,446 control events and resulted in a RR of 0.85 (95 % CI, 0.79-0.92).

Conclusions

The introduction of PR programs at different levels of the healthcare sector is a challenging but rewarding public health strategy. Existing research covering different clinical outcomes supports the idea that PR could, in fact, stimulate providers to improve healthcare quality.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1543-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Does public reporting influence antibiotic and injection prescribing to all patients? A cluster-randomized matched-pair trial in china

The inappropriate use and overuse of antibiotics and injections are serious threats to global population, and the public reporting of health care performance (PRHCP) has been an important instrument for improving the quality of care. However, existing evidence shows a mixed effect of PRHCP. This study is to explore the potential effectiveness of PRHCP that contributes to the convincing evidence of health policy and reform.This study was undertaken in Qian Jiang City, applying a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial. Twenty primary care institutions were treated as clusters and were matched into 10 pairs. Clusters in each pair were randomly assigned into a control or an intervention group. Physicians' prescribing information was publicly reported to patients and physicians monthly in the intervention group from October 2013. A total of 748,632 outpatient prescriptions were included for difference-in-difference (DID) regression model and subgroups (SGs) analysis.Overall, PRHCP intervention led to a slight reduction in the use of combined antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] = 0.870, P < 0.001) and slowed the average expenditure increase of patients (coefficient = -0.051, P < 0.001). SG analysis showed the effect of PRHCP varied among patients with different characteristics. PRHCP decreased the probability of prescriptions requiring antibiotics, combined antibiotics, and injections of patients aged 18 to 64 years old (OR < 1), and all results were statistically significant. By contrast, the results of elderly and minor patients with health insurance showed that PRHCP increased their probability of prescriptions requiring antibiotics and injections. PRHCP slowed the increase of average expenditure of most SGs.PRHCP intervention can influence the prescribing pattern of physicians. Patient factors such as age and health insurance influence the effect of PRHCP intervention, which imply that PRHCP should be designed for different patients. Patient education, aiming at radically changing attitudes toward antibiotics and injections, should be taken to promote the effectiveness of public reporting in China.

Effect of public reporting on intensive care unit discharge destination and outcomes

RATIONALE

Public reporting of hospital performance is designed to improve healthcare outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice, but these programs may carry unintended consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether publicly reporting in-hospital mortality rates for intensive care unit (ICU) patients influenced discharge patterns or mortality.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study taking advantage of a natural experiment in which California, but not other states, publicly reported hospital-specific severity-adjusted ICU mortality rates between 2007 and 2012. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient, hospital, and regional characteristics to compare mortality rates and discharge patterns between California and states without public reporting for Medicare fee-for-service ICU admissions from 2005 through 2009 using a difference-in-differences approach.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We assessed discharge patterns using post-acute care use and acute care hospital transfer rates and mortality using in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates. The study cohort included 936,063 patients admitted to 646 hospitals. Compared with control subjects, admission to a California ICU after the introduction of public reporting was associated with a reduced odds of post-acute care use in post-reform year 2 (ratio of odds ratios [ORs], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.96) and increased odds of transfer to another acute care hospital in both post-reform years (year 1: ratio of ORs, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; year 2: ratio of ORs, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.33-1.53). There were no significant differences in in-hospital or 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Public reporting of ICU in-hospital mortality rates was associated with changes in discharge patterns but no change in risk-adjusted mortality.

Public reporting influences antibiotic and injection prescription in primary care: a segmented regression analysis

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Inappropriate use and overuse of antibiotics and injections are serious threats to the global population, particularly in developing countries. In recent decades, public reporting of health care performance (PRHCP) has been an instrument to improve the quality of care. However, existing evidence shows a mixed effect of PRHCP. This study evaluated the effect of PRHCP on physicians' prescribing practices in a sample of primary care institutions in China. Segmented regression analysis was used to produce convincing evidence for health policy and reform.

METHODS

The PRHCP intervention was implemented in Qian City that started on 1 October 2013. Performance data on prescription statistics were disclosed to patients and health workers monthly in 10 primary care institutions. A total of 326 655 valid outpatient prescriptions were collected. Monthly effective prescriptions were calculated as analytical units in the research (1st to 31st every month). This study involved multiple assessments of outcomes 13 months before and 11 months after PRHCP intervention (a total of 24 data points).

RESULTS

Segmented regression models showed downward trends from baseline on antibiotics (coefficient = -0.64, P = 0.004), combined use of antibiotics (coefficient = -0.41, P < 0.001) and injections (coefficient = -0.5957, P = 0.001) after PRHCP intervention. The average expenditure of patients slightly increased monthly before the intervention (coefficient = 0.8643, P < 0.001); PRHCP intervention also led to a temporary increase in average expenditure of patients (coefficient = 2.20, P = 0.307) but slowed down the ascending trend (coefficient = -0.45, P = 0.033). The prescription rate of antibiotics and injections after intervention (about 50%) remained high.

CONCLUSIONS

PRHCP showed positive effects on physicians' prescribing behaviour, considering the downward trends on the use of antibiotics and injections and average expenditure through the intervention. However, the effect was not immediately observed; a lag time existed before public reporting intervention worked.

Application of propensity scores to explore the effect of public reporting of medicine use information on rational drug use in China: a quasi-experimental design

Background

Transparency has become a hottest topic and a growing movement in the health care system worldwide. This study used a quasi-experimental design method to explore whether public reporting of medicine use information can improve rational drug use.

Methods

20 township hospitals and 274 doctors of City Y in Hubei Province, China were divided into the intervention and control groups on the basis of their characteristics. In the intervention group, the values and rankings of the average expenditure per prescription, percentage of prescriptions requiring antibiotics and percentage of prescriptions requiring injections of each hospital and doctor were publicly released to patients and doctors in an appropriate format monthly. Data were gathered both four months before and after the intervention. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the observed covariate (gender, age, experience, education level, title, and monthly income) differences in the doctors’ characteristics. 108 pairs of doctors were obtained after PSM. Chi-square test and t-test were employed to explore the effect of public reporting of medicine use information on rational drug use. The study was approved by the Committee of Tongji Medical College, Hua Zhong University of Science and Technology (IORG No: IORG0003571).

Results

In baseline, the average expenditure per prescription of the 274 doctors was 42.82 RMB yuan (USD 6.97), the percentage of prescriptions requiring antibiotics was 63.00%, and the percentage of prescriptions requiring injections was 70.79%, all higher than the average of Hubei Province and the standard recommended by WHO. Before the intervention all the three indicators were all comparable (p > 0.05), whereas after the intervention, a significant difference (p < 0.05) was found for the percentage of prescriptions requiring injections between the intervention (64.66%) and control groups (70.52%).

Conclusions

Irrational drug use remains a policy issue in township hospitals in the study area. We demonstrated that publicly reporting medicine use information could decrease the percentage of prescriptions requiring injections in township hospitals in China, but this effect was not observed on prescription costs and antibiotics use. Analyses of the mechanism and long-term effect of public reporting of medicine use information are recommended for further studies.

Can public reporting impact patient outcomes and disparities? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Recent US healthcare reforms aim to improve quality and access. We synthesized evidence assessing the impact that public reporting (PR), which will be extended to the outpatient setting, has on patient outcomes and disparities.

METHODS

A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines identified studies addressing the impact of PR on patient outcomes and disparities.

RESULTS

Of the 1970 publications identified, 25 were relevant, spanning hospitals (16), nursing homes (5), emergency rooms (1), health plans (2), and home health agencies (1). Evidence of effect on patient outcomes was mixed, with 6 studies reporting a favorable effect, 9 a mixed effect, 9 a null effect, and 1 a negative effect. One study found a mixed effect of PR on disparities.

CONCLUSION

The evidence of the impact of PR on patient outcomes is lacking, with limited evidence that PR has a favorable effect on outcomes in nursing homes. There is little evidence supporting claims that PR will have an impact on disparities or in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Health systems should collect information on patient-relevant outcomes. The lack of evidence does not necessarily imply a lack of effect, and a research gap exists regarding patient-relevant outcomes and PR.

Dissemination of performance information and continuous improvement: A narrative systematic review

PURPOSE

Developing a performance measure and reporting the results to support decision making at an individual level has yielded poor results in many health systems. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the factors associated with the dissemination of performance information that generate and support continuous improvement in health organizations.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A systematic data collection strategy that includes empirical and theoretical research published from 1980 to 2010, both qualitative and quantitative, was performed on Web of Science, Current Contents, EMBASE and MEDLINE. A narrative synthesis method was used to iteratively detail explicative processes that underlie the intervention. A classification and synthesis framework was developed, drawing on knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) literature. The sample consisted of 114 articles, including seven systematic or exhaustive reviews.

FINDINGS

Results showed that dissemination in itself is not enough to produce improvement initiatives. Successful dissemination depends on various factors, which influence the way collective actors react to performance information such as the clarity of objectives, the relationships between stakeholders, the system's governance and the available incentives.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

This review was limited to the process of knowledge dissemination in health systems and its utilization by users at the health organization level. Issues related to improvement initiatives deserve more attention.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Knowledge dissemination goes beyond better communication and should be considered as carefully as the measurement of performance. Choices pertaining to intervention should be continuously prompted by the concern to support organizational action.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

While considerable attention was paid to the public reporting of performance information, this review sheds some light on a more promising avenue for changes and improvements, notably in public health systems.

Public reporting of health care-associated infections (HAIs): approach to choosing HAI measures

OBJECTIVE

To develop a method for selecting health care-associated infection (HAI) measures for public reporting.

CONTEXT

HAIs are common, serious, and costly adverse outcomes of medical care that affect 2 million people in the United States annually. Thirty-seven states have introduced or passed legislation requiring public reporting of HAI measures. State legislation varies widely regarding which HAIs to report, how the data are collected and reported, and public availability of results.

DESIGN

The Maryland Health Care Commission developed an HAI Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that consisted of a group of experts in the field of healthcare epidemiology, infection prevention and control (IPC), and public health. This group reviewed public reporting systems in other states, surveyed Maryland hospitals to determine the current state of IPC programs, performed a literature review on HAI measures, and developed six criteria for ranking the measures: impact, improvability, inclusiveness, frequency, functionality, and feasibility. The committee and experts in the field then ranked each of 18 proposed HAI measures. A composite score was determined for each measure.

RESULTS

Among outcome measures, the rate of central line-associated bloodstream infections ranked highest, followed by the rate of post-coronary artery bypass grafting surgical-site infections. Among process measures, perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis, compliance with central-line bundles, compliance with hand hygiene, and healthcare-worker influenza vaccination ranked highest.

CONCLUSIONS

Our qualitative criteria facilitated consensus on the HAI TAC and provided a useful framework for public reporting of HAI measures. Validation will be important for such approaches to be supported by the scientific community.

Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts?

This study evaluates the impact on quality improvement of reporting hospital performance publicly versus privately back to the hospital. Making performance information public appears to stimulate quality improvement activities in areas where performance is reported to be low. The findings from this Wisconsin-based study indicate that there is added value to making this information public.

Employers' efforts to measure and improve hospital quality: determinants of success

We examined eleven communities in which an employer coalition created a report card to compare the performance of the community's hospitals. After interviewing employer coalition and hospital representatives from each community, we found great variability in report cards' capacity to prompt quality improvement. Although some were successful, others had less impact because of conflicts between employer coalitions and hospitals. Areas of disagreement included selection of appropriate goals, methodology of quality measurement, whether report cards should be publicly released, and the use of economic incentives to improve quality. We describe these conflicts and offer recommendations for future hospital report cards.