Abstract
BackgroundHealthcare quality measurement systems, which use aggregated patient-level quality measures to assess organisational performance, have been introduced widely. Yet, their usefulness in practice has received scant attention. Using Minnesota nursing home quality indicators (QIs) as a case example, we demonstrate an approach for systematically evaluating QIs in practice based on: (a) parsimony and relevance, (b) usability in discriminating between facilities, (c) actionability and (d) construct validity.MethodsWe analysed 19 risk-adjusted, facility-level QIs over the 2012–2019 period. Parsimony and relevance of QIs were evaluated using scatter plots, Pearson correlations, literature review and expert opinions. Discrimination between facilities was assessed by examining facility QI distributions and the impact of the distributions on scoring. Actionability of QIs was assessed through QI trends over time. Construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis of domain structure for grouping the QIs.ResultsCorrelation analysis and qualitative assessment led to redefining one QI, adding one improvement-focused QI, and combining two highly correlated QIs to improve parsimony and clinical relevance. Ten of the QIs displayed normal distributions which discriminated well between the best and worst performers. The other nine QIs displayed poor discrimination; they had skewed distributions with ceiling or floor effects. We recommended scoring approaches tailored to these distributions. One QI displaying substantial improvement over time was recommended for retirement (physical restraint use). Based on factor analysis, we grouped the 18 final QIs into four domains: incontinence (4 QIs), physical functioning (4 QIs), psychosocial care (4 QIs) and care for specific conditions (6 QIs).ConclusionWe demonstrated a systematic approach for evaluating QIs in practice by arriving at parsimonious and relevant QIs, tailored scoring to different QI distributions and a meaningful domain structure. This approach could be applied in evaluating quality measures in other health or long-term care settings.
Funder
Evaluation contract with the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
Reference51 articles.
1. National Quality Forum (NQF) . Measure evaluation criteria. Available: https://www.qualityforum.org/measuring_performance/submitting_standards/measure_evaluation_criteria.aspx [Accessed 01 July 2022].
2. Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators
3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) . Find and compare nursing homes, hospitals and other providers near you. Available: https://www.medicare.gov/care-compare/?providerType=Hospital&redirect=true [Accessed 26 Feb 2022].
4. Fekri O , Macarayan ER , Klazinga N . Health system performance assessment in the who European region: which domains and indicators have been used by member states for its measurement? Copenhagen WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2018.
5. The Seniors Quality Leap Initiative (SQLI): An International Collaborative to Improve Quality in Long-Term Care
Cited by
1 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