The Volume and Cost of Quality Metric Reporting

Author:

Saraswathula Anirudh12,Merck Samantha J.3,Bai Ge4,Weston Christine M.5,Skinner Elizabeth Ann5,Taylor April6,Kachalia Allen23,Demski Renee6,Wu Albert W.25,Berry Stephen A.23

Affiliation:

1. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

2. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

3. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

4. Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

5. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland

6. Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Abstract

ImportanceUS hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known.ObjectiveTo evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type.ResultsA total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year).Conclusions and RelevanceSignificant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3