Author:
Schüttig Wiebke,Flemming Ronja,Mosler Christiane Höhling,Leve Verena,Reddemann Olaf,Schultz Annemarie,Brua Emmanuelle,Brittner Matthias,Meyer Frank,Pollmanns Johannes,Martin Johnannes,Czihal Thomas,von Stillfried Dominik,Wilm Stefan,Sundmacher Leonie
Abstract
Abstract
Background
In settings like the ambulatory care sector in Germany, where data on the outcomes of interdisciplinary health services provided by multiple office-based physicians are not always readily available, our study aims to develop a set of indicators of health care quality and utilization for 14 groups of ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions based on routine data. These may improve the provision of health care by informing discussions in quality circles and other meetings of networks of physicians who share the same patients.
Methods
Our set of indicators was developed as part of the larger Accountable Care in Deutschland (ACD) project using a pragmatic consensus approach. The six stages of the approach drew upon a review of the literature; the expertise of physicians, health services researchers, and representatives of physician associations and statutory health insurers; and the results of a pilot study with six informal network meetings of office-based physicians who share the same patients.
Results
The process resulted in a set of 248 general and disease specific indicators for 14 disease groups. The set provides information on the quality of care provided and on patient pathways, covering patient characteristics, physician visits, ambulatory care processes, pharmaceutical prescriptions and outcome indicators. The disease groups with the most indicators were ischemic heart diseases, diabetes and heart failure.
Conclusion
Our set of indicators provides useful information on patients’ health care use, health care processes and health outcomes for 14 commonly treated groups of ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions. This information can inform discussions in interdisciplinary quality circles in the ambulatory sector and foster patient-centered care.
Funder
Technische Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference44 articles.
1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young J, French S, O’Brien M, et al. Audit and feedback : effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD000259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3.
2. Beyer M, Gerlach FM, Flies U, Grol R, Król Z, Munck A, et al. The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe. Results of a survey in 26 European countries. Fam Pract. 2003;20(4):443–51.
3. Schneider A, Wensing M, Biessecker K, Quinzler R, Kaufmann-Kolle P, Szecsenyi J. Impact of quality circles for improvement of asthma care: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(2):185–90.
4. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America; Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. 6, Protecting Voluntary Reporting Systems from Legal Discovery.
5. Lester H, Campbell S. Developing Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators and the concept of “QOFability.”. Qual Prim Care. 2010;18(2):103–9.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献