The association between first-time accreditation and the delivery of recommended care: a before and after study in the Faroe Islands

Background

Significant resources are spent on hospital accreditation worldwide. However, documentation of the effects of accreditation on processes, quality of care and outcomes in healthcare remain scarce. This study aimed to examine changes in the delivery of patient care in accordance with clinical guidelines (recommended care) after first-time accreditation in a care setting not previously exposed to systematic quality improvement initiatives.

Methods

We conducted a before and after study based on medical record reviews in connection with introducing first-time accreditation. We included patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), childbirth, heart failure and hip fracture treated at public, non-psychiatric Faroese hospitals during 2012–2013 (before accreditation) or 2017–2018 (after accreditation). The intervention was the implementation of a modified second version of The Danish Healthcare Quality Program (DDKM) from 2014 to 2016 including an on-site accreditation survey in the Faroese hospitals. Recommended care was assessed using 63 disease specific patient level process performance measures in seven clinical conditions. We calculated the fulfillment and changes in the opportunity-based composite score and the all-or-none score.

Results

We included 867 patient pathways (536 before and 331 after). After accreditation, the total opportunity-based composite score was marginally higher though the change did not reach statistical significance (adjusted percentage point difference (%): 4.4%; 95% CI: − 0.7 to 9.6). At disease level, patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, COPD and childbirth received a higher proportion of recommended care after accreditation. No difference was found for heart failure and diabetes. Hip fracture received less recommended care after accreditation. The total all-or-none score, which is the probability of a patient receiving all recommended care, was significantly higher after accreditation (adjusted relative risk (RR): 2.32; 95% CI: 2.03 to 2.67). The improvement was particularly strong for patients with COPD (RR: 16.22; 95% CI: 14.54 to 18.10).

Conclusion

Hospitals were in general more likely to provide recommended care after first-time accreditation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06952-w.

Has physical therapists' management of musculoskeletal conditions improved over time?

BACKGROUND

Our 2019 systematic review found that up to 63% of physical therapists provided recommended care for musculoskeletal conditions, up to 43% provided non-recommended care, and up to 81% provided care of unknown value. We included studies published as early as 1993 and as recent as 2017.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether physical therapists' treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions have improved over time.

METHODS

For the original review, we included studies (until April 2018) that quantified physical therapy treatment choices for musculoskeletal conditions through surveys of physical therapists, audits of clinical notes, and other methods (e.g. clinical observation). Using medians and interquartile ranges, we summarised the percentage of physical therapists who provided treatments that were recommended, not recommended, and of unknown value. For this analysis, we stratified the findings from the above systematic review by decade (1990-1999, 2000-2009, 2010-2018).

RESULTS

The median percentage of physical therapists who provided recommended treatments (40% from 1990 to 1999, 50% from 2000 to 2009, and 35% from 2010 to 2018) and non-recommended treatments (41%, 28%, and 39% respectively) has not changed over time. However, more physical therapists seem to be providing treatments of unknown value (41% from 1990 to 1999, 55% from 2000 to 2009, and 70% from 2010 to 2018).

CONCLUSION

Possible explanations for this trend include the growing need for clinical innovation, challenge of keeping up to date with evidence, increased exposure to treatments of unknown value, belief that evidence is not relevant to practice, and possible limitations of the data. Strategies to help physical therapists replace non-recommended care with recommended care are discussed.

Adherence to quality breast cancer survivorship care in four Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In order to maximize later health, there are established components and guidelines for quality follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. However, adherence to quality follow-up in Canada may not be optimal, and may vary by province. We determined and compared the proportion of patients in each province who received adherent and non-adherent surveillance for recurrence, new cancers and late effects, recommended preventive care, and recommended physician visits for comorbidities.

METHODS

Cohorts consisted of all adult women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2010/2012 in four Canadian provinces (British Columbia (BC) N = 9338; Manitoba N = 2688; Ontario N = 23,700; Nova Scotia (NS) N = 2735), identified from provincial cancer registries, alive and cancer-free at 30 months post-diagnosis. Their healthcare utilization was determined from one to 5 years post-treatment, using linked administrative databases. Adherence, underuse, and overuse of recommended services were evaluated yearly and compared using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In all provinces and follow-up years, the majority of survivors had more than the recommended number of visits to either an oncologist or primary care physician (range 53.8% NS Year 3; 85.8% Ontario Year 4). The proportion of patients with the guideline-recommended number of oncologist visits varied by province (range 29.8% BC Year 5; 74.8% Ontario Year 5), and the proportion of patients with less than the recommended number of specified breast cancer-related visits with either an oncologist or primary care physician ranged from 32.6% (Ontario Year 2) to 84.4% (NS Year 3). Underuse of surveillance breast imaging was identified in NS and BC. The proportion of patients receiving imaging for metastatic disease (not recommended in the guidelines) in BC, Manitoba, and Ontario (not reported in NS) ranged from 20.3% (BC Year 5) to 53.3% (Ontario Year 2). Compliance with recommended physician visits for patients with several chronic conditions was high in Ontario and NS. Preventive care was less than optimal in all provinces with available data.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of breast cancer survivor follow-up care varies among provinces. Results point to exploration of factors affecting differences, province-specific opportunities for care improvement, and the value of administrative datasets for health system assessment.

Disparities in receipt of recommended care among younger versus older medicare beneficiaries: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although health disparities have been documented between Medicare beneficiaries based on age (<65 years vs. older age groups), underuse of recommended medical care in younger beneficiaries has not been thoroughly investigated. In this study, we aim to identify and characterize vulnerabilities of the younger Medicare age group (aged <65 years) in relation to older age groups (aged 65-74 years and ≥75 years) and to explore age group as a determinant of use of recommended care among Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who participated in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey between 2001 and 2008 (N = 30,117). Age group characteristics were compared using cross-sectional data at baseline. During follow-up, we assessed the association between age and receipt of recommended care on 38 recommended care indicators, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Follow-up periods differed by component indicator.

RESULTS

At baseline, a higher proportion of younger beneficiaries experienced social disadvantage, disability and certain morbidities than older age groups. During follow-up, younger beneficiaries were significantly less likely to receive overall recommended care compared to those 65-74 years of age (adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.70-0.80). In addition, male gender, non-Hispanic black race, less than high school education, living alone, with children or with others, psychiatric disorders and higher activity limitation stages were all associated with underuse of recommended care.

CONCLUSIONS

Younger Medicare beneficiary status appears to be an independent risk factor for underuse of appropriate care. Support to ameliorate disparities in different social and health aspects may be warranted.