A Novel Patient-oriented Tool for Evaluating Quality Measurements.
measurement
patient-oriented
quality
standardization
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Apr 2020
18 Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
21
5
2020
pubmed:
21
5
2020
medline:
21
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Quality measurements (QMs) have emerged as quantitative tools for measuring "quality", an elusive term that has been historically difficult to define and quantify. However, current literature has demonstrated that these measurements are flawed. The purpose of this study was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of quality measurements and provide a novel scorecard for evaluating quality measurements. In this retrospective analysis, 246 quality measurements that are integrated into the most significant payer-provider contracts within our institution were analyzed. Each measurement was dissected based on type of measurement, evidence, precision, data exchange, alignment, and how patient-oriented. Our research showed a significant lack of quality measurement alignment across payer-provider contracts. As such, we developed and proposed a Quality Measurement Evaluation Tool (QMET) that scores a quality measurement's ability to 1) reflect population health and 2) promote patient-oriented goals. Our research demonstrated the majority of quality measurements scored in the inadequate range (i.e., QMET score <6) and only few in the optimal range (i.e., QMET score 10-12). QMET provides a standardized and comprehensive method for appraising quality measurements, promoting continued use of QMs that accurately reflect population health and promote patient-oriented measurements. Future research into the application and reliability of QMET is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32432004
doi: 10.7759/cureus.7726
pmc: PMC7233930
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e7726Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020, Rawi et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Diabetes Care. 2003 May;26(5):1608-12
pubmed: 12716826
N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 16;354(11):1147-56
pubmed: 16540615
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Feb;84(2):87-100
pubmed: 25453274
JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):1000-5
pubmed: 9749483
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jun 19;156(12):880-91, W312
pubmed: 22711081
JAMA. 2016 May 3;315(17):1831-2
pubmed: 27077647
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 1;366(9):777-9
pubmed: 22375966
Diabetes Care. 2016 Jan;39 Suppl 1:S4-5
pubmed: 26696680
J Patient Saf. 2013 Sep;9(3):122-8
pubmed: 23860193