Measuring guideline concordance via electronic health records: a new model for estimating concordance scores.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Stephanie C C van der Lubbe, Lay Hoon Goh, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Wilson Ws Tam, Jose M Valderas
{"title":"Measuring guideline concordance via electronic health records: a new model for estimating concordance scores.","authors":"Stephanie C C van der Lubbe, Lay Hoon Goh, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Wilson Ws Tam, Jose M Valderas","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guideline concordance is associated with improved patient outcomes. Accurately quantifying the concordance between provided care and guideline recommendations offers valuable insights into the alignment of care with established guidelines and supports proactive approaches for improving the quality of care. Traditional models for calculating guideline concordance are effective in assessing clinical performance via cohort averages. However, these models fail at the individual patient level by not accounting for past clinical activities and their timing, which may give a distorted impression of the actual alignment between guideline recommendations and received care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop a model for evaluating guideline concordance that provides accurate concordance scores at the individual patient level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The newly developed ratio model incorporates past clinical activities and their timing (ie, past clinical trajectories), resulting in accurate, patient-centred concordance scores. We discuss its advantages and limitations and showcase its performance using clinical indicators for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ratio model demonstrates enhanced precision in evaluating guideline concordance at the individual level and better reflects the clinical trajectory of individual patients. While primarily designed to produce accurate individual patient scores, the model is also effective for assessing clinical performance through cohort averages. The ratio model is adaptable to diverse clinical contexts requiring regular follow-up, including chronic disease management, vaccination programmes, cancer surveillance and routine health screenings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ratio model provides accurate and patient-centred guideline concordance scores. The model's enhanced precision at the individual level creates opportunities for research and clinical applications, including integration into clinical decision support systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018494","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Guideline concordance is associated with improved patient outcomes. Accurately quantifying the concordance between provided care and guideline recommendations offers valuable insights into the alignment of care with established guidelines and supports proactive approaches for improving the quality of care. Traditional models for calculating guideline concordance are effective in assessing clinical performance via cohort averages. However, these models fail at the individual patient level by not accounting for past clinical activities and their timing, which may give a distorted impression of the actual alignment between guideline recommendations and received care.

Objectives: To develop a model for evaluating guideline concordance that provides accurate concordance scores at the individual patient level.

Methods: The newly developed ratio model incorporates past clinical activities and their timing (ie, past clinical trajectories), resulting in accurate, patient-centred concordance scores. We discuss its advantages and limitations and showcase its performance using clinical indicators for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Results: The ratio model demonstrates enhanced precision in evaluating guideline concordance at the individual level and better reflects the clinical trajectory of individual patients. While primarily designed to produce accurate individual patient scores, the model is also effective for assessing clinical performance through cohort averages. The ratio model is adaptable to diverse clinical contexts requiring regular follow-up, including chronic disease management, vaccination programmes, cancer surveillance and routine health screenings.

Conclusions: The ratio model provides accurate and patient-centred guideline concordance scores. The model's enhanced precision at the individual level creates opportunities for research and clinical applications, including integration into clinical decision support systems.

背景:指南的一致性与患者预后的改善有关。准确量化所提供的医疗服务与指南建议之间的一致性,有助于深入了解医疗服务与既定指南的一致性,并支持采取积极主动的方法来提高医疗服务质量。传统的指南一致性计算模型可通过队列平均值有效评估临床表现。然而,这些模型在单个患者层面上却失效了,因为它们没有考虑过去的临床活动及其时间,这可能会扭曲指南建议与所接受护理之间的实际一致性:目的:开发一种评估指南一致性的模型,该模型可在患者个体层面提供准确的一致性评分:方法:新开发的比率模型纳入了过去的临床活动及其时间(即过去的临床轨迹),从而得出准确的、以患者为中心的一致性评分。我们讨论了该模型的优势和局限性,并利用 2 型糖尿病患者的临床指标展示了该模型的性能:结果:比值模型在评估个体层面的指南一致性时显示出更高的精确度,并能更好地反映个体患者的临床轨迹。虽然该模型的主要目的是为患者个人提供准确的评分,但它也能通过队列平均值有效评估临床表现。比值模型适用于需要定期随访的各种临床情况,包括慢性病管理、疫苗接种计划、癌症监测和常规健康检查:比值模型可提供准确的、以患者为中心的指南一致性评分。该模型在个体水平上提高了精确度,为研究和临床应用创造了机会,包括集成到临床决策支持系统中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信