Evidence-based indicators for the measurement of quality of primary care using health insurance claims data in Switzerland: results of a pragmatic consensus process

Development of a set of quality indicators in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan with a modified Delphi method

BACKGROUNDS

Few paediatric and perinatal quality indicators (QIs) have been developed in the Japanese setting, and the quality of care is not assured or validated. The aim of this study was to develop QIs in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database and confirm the feasibility and applicability of the indicators using a single-site practice test.

METHODS

We used a RAND-modified Delphi method that integrates evidence review with expert consensus development. QI candidates were generated from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) available in English or Japanese and existing QIs in nine selected paediatric or perinatal conditions. Consensus building was based on independent panel ratings. The performance of QIs was retrospectively assessed using data from an administrative database at the National Children's Hospital. Data between April 2018 and March 2019 were used, while data between April 2019 and March 2021 were also used for selected condition, considering the small number of patients. Each QI was calculated as follows: number of times the indicator was met/number of participants×100.

RESULTS

From the literature review conducted between 2010 and 2020, 124 CPGs and 193 existing indicators were identified to generate QI candidates. Through the consensus-building process, 133 QI candidates were assessed and 79 QIs were accepted. The practice test revealed wide variations in the process-level performance of QIs in four categories: patient safety: median 43.9% (IQR 16.7%-85.6%), general paediatrics: median 98.8% (IQR 84.2%-100%), advanced paediatrics: median 94.4% (IQR 46.0%-100%) and advanced obstetrics: median 80.3% (IQR 59.6%-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

We established 79 QIs for paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database that can be applied to hospitals nationwide. The practice test confirmed the measurability of the developed QIs. Benchmarking these QIs will be an attractive approach to improving the quality of care.

Fall-risk-increasing drugs in older patients: the role of guidelines and GP-centred health care in Germany

BACKGROUND

fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) are a ubiquitous issue, especially for older patients. As part of a German guideline for pharmacotherapy, from 2019, a new quality indicator for this patient group was developed to measure the percentage of patients receiving FRIDs.

METHODS

patients, aged at least 65 years in 2020, insured by the Allgemeine OrtsKrankenkasse statutory health insurance (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany) with a particular general practitioner (GP) were observed from 1 January to 31 December 2020 cross-sectionally. The intervention group received GP-centred health care. Within GP-centred health care, GPs have the role of gatekeepers for patients within the health system and are-in contrast to regular care GPs in addition to other commitments-obliged to regularly attend training sessions on appropriate pharmacotherapy. The control group received regular GP care. For both groups, we measured the percentage of patients receiving FRIDs as well as the occurrence of (fall-related) fractures as the main outcomes. To test our hypotheses, we performed multivariable regression modelling.

RESULTS

a total of 634,317 patients were eligible for analysis. Within the intervention group (n = 422,364), we could observe a significantly reduced odds ratio (OR) for obtaining a FRID (OR = 0.842, confidence interval [CI]: [0.826, 0.859], P < 0.0001) in comparison to the control group (n = 211,953). Moreover, we could observe a significantly reduced chance for (fall-related) fractures in the intervention group (OR: 0.932, CI: [0.889, 0.975], P = 0.0071).

CONCLUSIONS

the findings point in the direction that the health care providers' awareness of the potential danger of FRIDs for older patients is higher in the GP-centred care group.

Common Features of Selection Processes of Health System Performance Indicators in Primary Healthcare: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health system performance indicators are widely used to assess primary healthcare (PHC) performance. Despite the numerous tools and some convergence on indicator criteria, there is not a clear understanding of the common features of indicator selection processes. We aimed to review the literature to identify papers that document indicator selection processes for health system performance indicators in PHC.

METHODS

We searched the online databases Scopus, Medline, and CINAHL, as well as the grey literature, without time restrictions, initially on July 31, 2019 followed by an update November 13, 2020. Empirical studies or reports were included if they described the selection of health system performance indicators or frameworks, that included PHC indicators. A combination of the process focussed research question and qualitative analysis meant a quality appraisal tool or assessment of bias could not meaningfully be applied to assess individual studies. We undertook an inductive analysis based on potential indicator selection processes criteria, drawn from health system performance indicator appraisal tools reported in the literature.

RESULTS

We identified 16 503 records of which 28 were included in the review. Most studies used a descriptive case study design. We found no consistent variations between indicator selection processes of health systems of high income and low- or lower-middle income countries. Identified common features of selection processes for indicators in PHC include literature review or adaption of an existing framework as an initial step; a consensus building process with stakeholders; structuring indicators into categories; and indicator criteria focusing on validity and feasibility. The evidence around field testing with utility and consideration of reporting burden was less clear.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight several characteristics of health system indicator selection processes. These features provide the groundwork to better understand how to value indicator selection processes in PHC.

Evidence-based indicators for the measurement of quality of primary care using health insurance claims data in Switzerland: update of the SQUIPRICA working group

Background

The level of quality of care of ambulatory services in Switzerland is almost completely unknown. Since health insurance claims are the only nationwide applicable and available data source for this purpose, a set of 24 quality indicators (QI) for the measurement of quality of primary care has been previously developed and implemented. The present paper reports on an evidence-based update and extension of the initial QI set.

Methods

Established pragmatic 6-step process based on informal consensus and potential QI extracted from international medical practice guidelines and pre-existing QI for primary care. Experts rated potential QI based on strength of evidence, relevance for Swiss public health, and controllability in the Swiss primary care context. Feasibility of a preliminary set of potential new QI was tested using claims data of persons with basic mandatory health insurance at one of the largest Swiss health insurers. This test built the basis for expert consensus on the final set of new QI. Additionally, two diabetes indicators included in the previous QI set were re-evaluated.

Results

Of 23 potential new indicators, 19 of them were selected for feasibility testing. The expert group consented a final set of 9 additional QI covering the domains general aspects/efficiency (2 QI), diagnostic measures (1 QI), geriatric care (2 QI), osteoarthritis (1 QI), and drug safety (3 QI). Two pre-existing diabetes indicators were updated.

Conclusions

Additional QI relating to overuse and intersectoral care aspects extend the options of measuring quality of primary care in Switzerland based on claims data and complement the initial QI set.

Aging and the Prevalence of Polypharmacy and Hyper-Polypharmacy Among Older Adults in South Korea: A National Retrospective Study During 2010–2019

Background: Polypharmacy has become a global health problem and is associated with adverse health outcomes in the elderly. This study evaluated the prevalence of polypharmacy and hyper-polypharmacy in elderly patients in South Korea during 2010–2019.

Methods: We analyzed the outpatient care of persons aged ≥65 years covered by National Health Insurance (NHI) using NHI claims data from 2010 to 2019. Polypharmacy was defined as the use of ≥5 medications, and hyper-polypharmacy was defined as the use of ≥10 medications, and we examined them over periods of ≥90 days and ≥180 days. The average annual percent change (AAPC) was calculated using Joinpoint statistical software.

Results: The prevalence of polypharmacy among ≥90 days of medication use elderly decreased from 42.5% in 2010 to 41.8% in 2019, and the prevalence of hyper-polypharmacy for ≥90 days increased from 10.4% to 14.4%. The prevalence of polypharmacy for ≥180 days increased from 37.8% in 2010 to 38.1% in 2019, and the prevalence of hyper-polypharmacy for ≥180 days increased from 6.4% to 9.4%. The prevalence of polypharmacy for ≥90 days and ≥180 days steadily increased among elderly patients, with AAPCs of 3.7 and 4.5, respectively.

Conclusion: The prevalence of polypharmacy for ≥90 days and ≥180 days remained stably high, with rates of about 42 and 38%, respectively, and hyper-polypharmacy increased over the past 10 years in South Korea. Therefore, strategies to address polypharmacy need to be implemented. Further research is also required to identify the clinical outcomes (including mortality risks) associated with polypharmacy.

Primary care of mothers and infants by the same or different physicians: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Different primary care delivery models exist for mothers and their infants. We examined whether primary care system performance measures differed when mother-infant dyads received primary care from the same or different providers.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study using Ontario health administrative data from 2004 to 2016. We included primiparous women and their singleton term infants and classified the primary care practitioners who provided the majority of care to the infant and the mother as concordant (same family physician for both; reference group), discordant (a different family physician for each) or pediatrician (pediatrician for the child, family physician for the mother). The primary outcome was nonobstetric maternal hospital admissions between 42 days and 2 years after delivery.

RESULTS

Among 481 721 mother-child pairs, 239 033 (49.6%) received concordant care, 114 006 (23.7%) received discordant care, and 128 682 (26.7%) received pediatrician care. Mothers in the pediatrician group were older and had greater comorbidity. Relative to concordant care, maternal nonobstetric hospital admissions occurred similarly under discordant care (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.04) and in the pediatrician group (adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02). Maternal deaths were similar under discordant care (adjusted OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62-1.63) but lower in the pediatrician group (adjusted OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.89). Maternal primary care visits were lower in both the discordant group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.68-0.69) and the pediatrician group (adjusted RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.75-0.76). Healthy children were more likely to miss the enhanced 18-month well-baby visit under discordant care (adjusted OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09) but less likely to miss this visit under pediatrician care (adjusted OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.46-0.49).

INTERPRETATION

Concordant care provided to a new mother and her infant by the same family physician was not associated with better primary care health system performance. The reason that pediatric primary care is associated with better maternal and child outcomes remains to be determined.

Evidence-based quality indicators for primary healthcare in association with the risk of hospitalisation: a population-based cohort study in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

The quality of ambulatory care in Switzerland is widely unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the recently proposed quality indicators (QIs) based on a nationwide healthcare claims database and determine their association with the risk of subsequent hospitalisation at patient-level.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Inpatient and outpatient claims data of a large health insurance in Switzerland covering all regions and population strata.

PARTICIPANTS

520 693 patients continuously insured during 2015 and 2016.

MEASURES

A total of 24 QIs were obtained by adapting the existing instruments to the Swiss national context and measuring at patient-level. The association between each QI and hospitalisation in the subsequent year was assessed using multiple logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with good adherence to QIs was high for the secondary prevention of diabetes and myocardial infarction (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control, 89%; aspirin use, 94%) but relatively low for polypharmacy (53%) or using potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in the elderly (PIM, 33%). Diabetes-related indicators such as the HbA1c control were significantly associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95), whereas the occurrence of polypharmacy and PIM increased the risk of hospitalisation in the following year (OR, 1.57/1.08; 95% CI, 1.51 to 1.64/1.05 to 1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to evaluate the recently presented QIs in Switzerland using nationwide real-life data. Our study suggests that the quality of healthcare, as measured by these QIs, varied. The majority of QIs, in particular QIs reflecting chronic care and medication use, are considered beneficial markers of healthcare quality as they were associated with reduced risk of hospitalisation in the subsequent year. Results from this large practical test on real-life data show the feasibility of these QIs and are beneficial in selecting the appropriate QIs for healthcare implementation in general practice.

Measuring diabetes guideline adherence with claims data: systematic construction of indicators and related challenges

OBJECTIVES

Indicators of guideline adherence are frequently used to examine the appropriateness of healthcare services. Only some potential indicators are actually usable for research with routine administrative claims data, potentially leading to a biased selection of research questions. This study aimed at developing a systematic approach to extract potential indicators from clinical practice guidelines (CPG), evaluate their feasibility for research with claims data and assess how the extracted set reflected different types of healthcare services. Diabetes mellitus (DM), Swiss national guidelines and health insurance claims data were analysed as a model case.

METHODS

CPG for diabetes patients were retrieved from the Swiss Endocrinology and Diabetes Society website. Recommendation statements involving a specific healthcare intervention for a defined patient population were translated into indicators of guideline adherence. Indicators were classified according to disease stage and healthcare service type. We assessed for all indicators whether they could be analysed with Swiss mandatory health insurance administrative claims data.

RESULTS

A total of 93 indicators were derived from 15 CPG, representing all sectors of diabetes care. For 63 indicators, the target population could not be identified using claims data only. For 67 indicators, the intervention could not be identified. Nine (10%) of all indicators were feasible for research with claims data (three addressed gestational diabetes and screening, five screening for complications and one glucose measurement). Some types of healthcare services, eg, management of risk factors, treatment of the disease and secondary prevention, lacked corresponding indicators feasible for research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic approach could identify a number of indicators of healthcare service utilisation, feasible for DM research with Swiss claims data. Some areas of healthcare were covered less well. The approach could be applied to other diseases and countries, helping to identify the potential bias in the selection of indicators and optimise research.