Clinical Quality and Patient Experience in the Adult Ambulatory Setting

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.

Outpatients' Opinion And Experience Regarding Telepharmacy During The COVID-19 Pandemic: The Enopex Project

Background

Telepharmacy, as a remote pharmaceutical care procedure, is being used worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of preserving the health of patients and professionals. Its future development should incorporate the assessment of patient perception, but no research study has investigated it.

Objective

The objective was to poll the opinions and experiences of outpatients with telepharmacy through a purpose-developed questionnaire and to assess it’s quality through an internal validity and reliability analysis.

Methods

Cross-sectional observational study of adult patients who used telepharmacy services during the COVID-19 lockdown period in Spain. The subjects answered a 24-item questionnaire, after giving their informed consent. Place of delivery, informed pharmacotherapeutic follow-up, opinion about telepharmacy, future development, ethics/satisfaction, and coordination constituted the six questionnaire categories. After assessing the adequate sample size with the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test, the Bartlett sphericity test analyzed the validity of the questionnaire. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach’s α coefficient calculations verified the reliability and internal consistency.

Results

A total of 9442 interviews were administered to patients from 81 hospitals, of which 8079 were valid (52.8% female). A 54.1% were aged between 41–65 years; 42.7% had been in treatment for more than 5 years; 42.8% lived between 6–31 miles from the hospital. As many as 96.7% of patients were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with telepharmacy, 97.5% considering it complementary to their usual follow-up; 55.9% expressed a preference for being followed up face to face when visiting the hospital. 75.6% said they had rather receive their medication at home. The sample size obtained was deemed appropriate [the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (0.789) and Bartlett’s sphericity test (p<0.005)]. The reliability analysis resulted in a Cronbach α = 0.7.

Conclusion

Patients have shown high satisfaction with telepharmacy and the ENOPEX questionnaire is a tool with sufficient validity and reliability to be used in the evaluation of the care that patients receive through telepharmacy.

The Use of Online Physician Training Can Improve Patient Experience and Physician Burnout

The authors tested the efficacy of an integrated approach to improving patient experience and physician burnout using a 24-week online training program coupled with a physician engagement strategy. Physicians from different disciplines were randomized to intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 33) groups. Patient experience, physician burnout, and satisfaction data were assessed using patient and provider surveys. Comparisons were made pre and post intervention, and between the groups. Intervention group mean scores increased (+1.40 points) while control group scores dropped (-0.11 points; P = .039). Scores on physician burnout surveys for the intervention group improved in all areas and changes in 2 domains were statistically significant. In all, 73.5% of physicians felt the program was effective. This integrated intervention enhanced patient experience scores and positively affected physicians' level of burnout, and physicians believed this exercise was useful.