An Equity Agenda for the Field of Health Care Quality Improvement

Method to share learning in real time at scientific meetings: lessons from the IHI-BMJ International Conference on Quality and Safety

BACKGROUND

Capturing and disseminating key learnings on emerging themes for conference participants is challenging, yet also presents a significant opportunity to distill, share and discuss learning in real time with conference organisers and attendees. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and British Medical Journal (BMJ) collaborate annually to convene a Health Quality and Safety conference attracting 1000 to 3000 attendees each year.

AIM

To test a learning system that harvested and synthesised the key lessons shared by conference participants at the 2022 IHI-BMJ Gothenburg Forum, and to disseminate this content.

METHODS

Twelve invited Forum attendees collected and shared their 'breakthrough learnings' via electronic survey. Three IHI team members synthesised the participants' responses into themes that were shared and refined in real time at an in-person Forum session including 35 additional participants.

RESULTS

Participants shared four learning themes: collaboration and co-production, trust, meaningful communication about data, and broadening the scope of the Science of Improvement field to multi-disciplinary and multi-system approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Collection of key learning on emerging topics of interest to the health system improvement community is feasible and yielded information both for dissemination and real-time learning. While not representing the full scope of the conference learnings, the content resonated with an additional group of reviewers at the conclusion of the conference and has guided planning for the next annual meeting. This approach may be helpful in capturing key themes for discussion and planning by similar improvement communities.

The Society of General Internal Medicine's Recommendations to Improve LGBTQ + Health

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ +) individuals experience bias in healthcare with 1 in 6 LGBTQ + adults avoiding healthcare due to anticipated discrimination and overall report poorer health status compared to heterosexual and cisgendered peers. The Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) is a leading organization representing academic physicians and recognizes that significant physical and mental health inequities exist among LGBTQ + communities. As such, SGIM sees its role in improving LGBTQ + patient health through structural change, starting at the national policy level all the way to encouraging change in individual provider bias and personal actions. SGIM endorses a series of recommendations for policy priorities, research and data collection standards, and institutional policy changes as well as community engagement and individual practices to reduce bias and improve the well-being and health of LGBTQ + patients.

Prediction of non emergent acute care utilization and cost among patients receiving Medicaid

Patients receiving Medicaid often experience social risk factors for poor health and limited access to primary care, leading to high utilization of emergency departments and hospitals (acute care) for non-emergent conditions. As programs proactively outreach Medicaid patients to offer primary care, they rely on risk models historically limited by poor-quality data. Following initiatives to improve data quality and collect data on social risk, we tested alternative widely-debated strategies to improve Medicaid risk models. Among a sample of 10 million patients receiving Medicaid from 26 states and Washington DC, the best-performing model tripled the probability of prospectively identifying at-risk patients versus a standard model (sensitivity 11.3% [95% CI 10.5, 12.1%] vs 3.4% [95% CI 3.0, 4.0%]), without increasing "false positives" that reduce efficiency of outreach (specificity 99.8% [95% CI 99.6, 99.9%] vs 99.5% [95% CI 99.4, 99.7%]), and with a ~ tenfold improved coefficient of determination when predicting costs (R2: 0.195-0.412 among population subgroups vs 0.022-0.050). Our best-performing model also reversed the lower sensitivity of risk prediction for Black versus White patients, a bias present in the standard cost-based model. Our results demonstrate a modeling approach to substantially improve risk prediction performance and equity for patients receiving Medicaid.

Applying Customer Discovery Method to a Chronic Disease Self-Management Mobile App: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

A significant health challenge is evident in the United States, with 6 in 10 adults having a chronic disease and 4 in 10 adults having 2 or more. Chronic disease self-management aims to prevent or delay disease progression and disability and reduce mortality risk. The evidence to support the use of information technology tools, including mobile apps, web-based portals, and web-based educational interventions, that support disease self-management and improve clinical outcomes is growing. Customer discovery and value proposition design methodology is a form of stakeholder engagement and is based on marketing and lean start-up business methods. As applied in health care, customer discovery and value proposition methodology can be used to understand the clinical problem and articulate the product's hypothesized unique value proposition relative to alternative options that are available to end users.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the experience and findings of academic researchers applying the customer discovery and value proposition methodology to identify stakeholders, needs, adaptability, and sustainability of a chronic disease self-management mobile app (CDapp). The motivation of the work is to make mobile health app interventions accessible and acceptable for all segments of patients' chronic diseases.

METHODS

Data were obtained through key informant interviews and analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis techniques. The value proposition framework was used to build the interview guide. The aim was to identify the needs, challenges (pains), and potential benefits (gains) of the CDapp for our stakeholders.

RESULTS

Our results showed that the primary consumers (end users) of a CDapp were the patients. The app adopters (decision makers) can be medical center leaders including population health department managers or insurance providers, while the consumer adoption influencers (influencers or saboteurs) are clinicians and patient caregivers. We developed an ecosystem map to visualize the clinical practice workflow and how an app for chronic disease management might integrate within an academic health care center or system. A value proposition for the identified customer segments was generated. Each stakeholder segment was working within a different framework to improve patient self-management. Patients needed help to adhere to self-care activities and they needed tailored health education. Health care leaders aim to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and workload. Clinicians wanted to improve patient education and care while reducing the time burden. Our results also showed that within academic medical centers, there were variations regarding patients' self-reported abilities to manage their diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Customer discovery is a useful form of stakeholder engagement when designing studies that seek to implement, adapt, and sustain an intervention. The customer discovery and value proposition methodology can be used as an alternative or complementary approach to formative research to generate valuable information in a brief period.

A Formal Framework For Incorporating Equity Into Health Care Quality Measurement

Quality measurement is an important tool for incentivizing improvement in the quality of health care. Most quality measurement efforts do not explicitly target health equity. Although some measurement approaches may intend to realign incentives to focus quality improvement efforts on underserved groups, the extent to which they accomplish this goal is understudied. We posit that tying incentives to approaches on the basis of stratification or disparities may have unintended consequences or limited effects. Such approaches might not reduce existing disparities because addressing one aspect of equity may be in competition with addressing others. We propose equity weighting, a new measurement framework to advance equity on multiple fronts that addresses the shortcomings of existing approaches and explicitly calibrates incentives to align with equity goals. We use colorectal cancer screening data derived from 2017 Medicare claims to illustrate how equity weighting fixes unintended consequences in other methods and how it can be adapted to policy goals.

Collaborative Learning Among Health Care Organizations to Improve Quality and Advance Racial Equity

Background

The study examined stakeholder experiences of a statewide learning collaborative, sponsored and led by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) and facilitated by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in quality of care.

Methods

Interviews of key stakeholders (n=44) were analyzed to assess experiences of collaborative learning and interventions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in quality of care. The interviews included BCBSMA, IHI, provider groups, and external experts.

Results

Breast cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, hypertension management, and diabetes management were focal areas for reducing disparities. Collaborative learning methods involved expert coaching, group meetings, and sharing of best practices. Interventions tested included pharmacist-led medication management, strategies to improve the collection of race, ethnicity, and language (REaL) data, transportation access improvement, and community health worker approaches. Stakeholder experiences highlighted three themes: (1) the learning collaborative enabled the testing of interventions by provider groups, (2) infrastructure and pilot funding were foundational investments, but groups needed more resources than they initially anticipated, and (3) expertise in quality improvement and health equity were critical for the testing of interventions and groups anticipated needing this expertise into the future.

Conclusions

BCBSMA's learning collaborative and intervention funding supported contracted providers in enhancing REaL data collection, implementing equity-focused interventions on a small scale, and evaluating their feasibility and impact. The collaborative facilitated learning among groups on innovative approaches for reducing racial disparities in quality. Concerns about sustainability underscore the importance of expertise for implementing initiatives to reduce racial and ethnic disparities.

A Public Health Critical Race Praxis Informed Congestive Heart Failure Quality Improvement Initiative on Inpatient General Medicine

BACKGROUND

Prior evaluation at our hospital demonstrated that, compared to White patients, Black and Latinx patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) were less likely to be admitted to the cardiology service rather than the general medicine service (GMS). Patients admitted to GMS (compared to cardiology) had inferior rates of cardiology follow-up and 30-day readmission.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test the feasibility and impacts of using quality improvement (QI) methods, in combination with the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) framework, to engage stakeholders in developing an intervention for ensuring guideline-concordant inpatient CHF care across all patient groups.

METHODS

We compared measures for all patients admitted with CHF to GMS between September 2019 and March 2020 (intervention group) to CHF patients admitted to GMS in the previous year (pre-intervention group) and those admitted to cardiology during the pre-intervention and intervention periods (cardiology group). Our primary measures were 30-day readmissions and 14- and 30-day post-discharge cardiology follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 79 patients admitted with CHF to GMS during the intervention period, all of whom received the intervention. There were similar rates of Black and Latinx patients across the three groups. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate (18.9% vs. 24.8%; p=0.024), though the cardiology group also had a decrease in 30-day readmissions from the pre-intervention to intervention period. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had significantly higher 14-day and 30-day post-discharge follow-up visits scheduled with cardiology (36.7% vs. 24.8%, p=0.005; 55.7% vs. 42.3%, p=0.0029), but no improvement in appointment attendance.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a first test of applying the PHCRP framework within a stakeholder-engaged QI initiative for improving CHF care across races and ethnicities. Our study design cannot evaluate causation. However, the improvements in 30-day readmission, as well as in processes of care that may affect it, provide optimism that inclusion of a racism-conscious framework in QI initiatives is feasible and may enhance QI measures.

Applying an equity lens to hospital safety monitoring: a critical interpretive synthesis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Hospital safety monitoring systems are foundational to how adverse events are identified and addressed. They are well positioned to bring equity-related safety issues to the forefront for action. However, there is uncertainty about how they have been, and can be, used to achieve this goal. We will undertake a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to examine how equity is integrated into hospital safety monitoring systems.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This review will follow CIS principles. Our initial compass question is: How is equity integrated into safety monitoring systems? We will begin with a structured search strategy of hospital safety monitoring systems in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for up to May 2023 to identify papers on safety monitoring systems generally and those linked to equity (eg, racism, social determinants of health). We will also review reference lists of selected papers, contact experts and draw on team expertise. For subsequent literature searching stages, we will use team expertise and expert contacts to purposively search the social science, humanities and health services research literature to support the development of a theoretical understanding of our topic. Following data extraction, we will use interpretive processes to develop themes and a critique of the literature. The above processes of question formulation, article search and selection, data extraction, and critique and synthesis will be iterative and interactive with the goal to develop a theoretical understanding of equity in hospital monitoring systems that will have practice-based implications.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval because we are reviewing published literature. We aim to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences.

A landscape assessment of the activities and capacities of evidence-to-policy intermediaries (EPI) in behavioral health

BACKGROUND

A significant gap exists between the production of research evidence and its use in behavioral health policymaking. Organizations providing consulting and support activities for improving policy represent a promising source for strengthening the infrastructure to address this gap. Understanding the characteristics and activities of these evidence-to-policy intermediary (EPI) organizations can inform the development of capacity-building activities, leading to strengthened evidence-to-policy infrastructure and more widespread evidence-based policymaking.

METHODS

Online surveys were sent to 51 organizations from English-speaking countries involved in evidence-to-policy activities in behavioral health. The survey was grounded in a rapid evidence review of the academic literature regarding strategies used to influence research use in policymaking. The review identified 17 strategies, which were classified into four activity categories. We administered the surveys via Qualtrics and calculated the descriptive statistics, scales, and internal consistency statistics using R.

RESULTS

A total of 31 individuals completed the surveys from 27 organizations (53% response rate) in four English-speaking countries. EPIs were evenly split between university (49%) and non-university (51%) settings. Nearly all EPIs conducted direct program support (mean = 4.19/5 [sd = 1.25]) and knowledge-building (4.03 [1.17]) activities. However, engagement with traditionally marginalized and non-traditional partners (2.84 [1.39]) and development of evidence reviews using formal critical appraisal methods (2.81 [1.70]) were uncommon. EPIs tend to be specialized, focusing on a group of highly related strategies rather than incorporating multiple evidence-to-policy strategies in their portfolios. Inter-item consistency was moderate to high, with scale α's ranging from 0.67 to 0.85. Ratings of respondents' willingness to pay for training in one of three evidence dissemination strategies revealed high interest in program and policy design.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that evidence-to-policy strategies are frequently used by existing EPIs; however, organizations tend to specialize rather than engage in a breadth of strategies. Furthermore, few organizations reported consistently engaging with non-traditional or community partners. Focusing on building capacity for a network of new and existing EPIs could be a promising strategy for growing the infrastructure needed for evidence-informed behavioral health policymaking.

A matter of trust: Commitment to act for health equity

We believe these recommendations constitute "minimum requirements" for health care organizations to move toward greater health equity. As health systems, standards-setting organizations, national and private purchaser organizations, and thought leaders, we represent organizations in the health care ecosystem that can both advise on strategies for adopting the recommendations and have the power and leverage to cause their implementation. We commit individually and collectively to use our leverage to propel their implementation at our own institutions and across the county. We very much hope others will join us.

Stakeholder-driven principles for advancing equity through shared measurement

OBJECTIVE

To advance equity by developing stakeholder-driven principles of shared measurement, which is using a common set of measurable goals that reflect shared priorities across communities and systems, such as health care, public health, and human and social services.

DATA SOURCES

From October 2019 to July 2021, we collected primary data from leaders in cross-systems alignment, measurement, and community engagement-including community members and community-based organization leaders-across the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

In partnership with equity and community engagement experts, we conducted a mixed-methods study that included multiple formative research activities and culminated in a six-week, stakeholder-engaged modified-Delphi process.

DATA COLLECTION

Formative data collection occurred through an environmental scan, interviews, focus groups, and an online survey. Principles were developed using a virtual modified Delphi with iterative rapid-analysis. Feedback on the final principles was collected through virtual focus groups, an online feedback form, and during virtual presentations.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We developed a set of five guiding principles. Measurement that aligns systems with communities toward equitable outcomes: (1) Requires upfront investment in communities; (2) Is co-created by communities; (3) Creates accountability to communities for addressing root causes of inequities and repairing harm; (4) Focuses on a holistic and comprehensive view of communities that highlights assets and historical context; and (5) Reflects long-term efforts to build trust. Using an equity-focused process resulted in principles with broad applicability.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaders across systems and communities can use these shared measurement principles to reimagine and transform how systems create equitable health by centering the needs and priorities of the communities they serve, particularly communities that historically have been harmed the most by inequities. Intentionally centering equity across all project activities was essential to producing principles that could guide others in advancing equity.

Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: What They are and Why We Need Them

A quote attributed to Mark Twain states, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.” The growing focus on patient centricity has revealed a misalignment between what patients report as important to them about their disease and/or treatment, and the data collected in research and care. Decisions across healthcare are made using an evidence base most stakeholders acknowledge is inadequate. Patients might report that what is important to them are everyday life impacts, concepts that can be very different from the more typical clinical outcomes we often track. In this paper, we encourage expanding current thinking to all “impacts,” not only health outcomes, but also the other equally (and sometimes more important) concerns patients report as important to them. We propose that a patient-centered core impact set be developed for each disease or condition of interest, and/or subpopulation of patients. A patient-centered core impact set begins with gathering from patients and caregivers an inventory of all impacts disease and treatments have on a patient’s (and carers’ and families’) life. Then, through a formal prioritization process, a core set of impacts is derived, inclusive of but extending beyond relevant health outcomes. We offer several recommendations on how to move the goal of a patient-centered core impact set forward through collaboration, leadership, and establishment of a patient-centered core impact set development blueprint with supporting tools.