Assessing Performance Reports to Individual Providers in the Care of Acute Coronary Syndromes

Obli Mani MBBS, Rajendra H. Mehta MD (Clinical Assistant Professor), Thomas Tsai MD (House Officer), Sharon Van Riper RN (formerly Clinical Nurse Manager, Quality Improvement Coordinator), Jeanna V. Cooper MS (Research Associate), Eva Kline-Rogers MS, RN (Outcomes Research Coordinator), Elizabeth Nolan MS, RN, CS (Clinical Nurse Specialist), Gwen Kearly RN (Interim Clinical Nurse Manager), Steve Erickson MD (Assistant Professor), Kim A. Eagle MD (Chief of Clinical Cardiology)
{"title":"Assessing Performance Reports to Individual Providers in the Care of Acute Coronary Syndromes","authors":"Obli Mani MBBS,&nbsp;Rajendra H. Mehta MD (Clinical Assistant Professor),&nbsp;Thomas Tsai MD (House Officer),&nbsp;Sharon Van Riper RN (formerly Clinical Nurse Manager, Quality Improvement Coordinator),&nbsp;Jeanna V. Cooper MS (Research Associate),&nbsp;Eva Kline-Rogers MS, RN (Outcomes Research Coordinator),&nbsp;Elizabeth Nolan MS, RN, CS (Clinical Nurse Specialist),&nbsp;Gwen Kearly RN (Interim Clinical Nurse Manager),&nbsp;Steve Erickson MD (Assistant Professor),&nbsp;Kim A. Eagle MD (Chief of Clinical Cardiology)","doi":"10.1016/S1070-3241(02)28021-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>As part of a quality improvement initiative in the management of acute coronary syndromes, performance reports on care of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) or unstable angina (UA) who were admitted to two cardiology services at the University of Michigan Medical Center in 1999 were disseminated to a range of providers.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In 1999, data were routinely collected by chart review on presentation, comorbidities, treatments, outcomes, and key process of care indicators for nearly 300 patients with AMI and a similar number of patients with acute UA. Key process of care indicators and outcomes were the focus of the report cards for AMI and UA.</p></div><div><h3>Results of survey on report cards</h3><p>The return rate for the provider survey—a simple one-page, nine-item question/answer sheet—was highest among faculty who received physician-specific reports (14 out of 17; 82%). Overall, 18 (60%) of 30 providers indicated that the report was useful, 18 responded favorably to the format, and only 3 (10%) indicated that the information was repetitive. Importantly, 24 (80%) indicated a desire to see future performance reports.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Although hospitalwide or even statewide reports have become familiar, their overall impact on care within hospitals or health systems is unknown. Because so many different caregivers affect the care of a single patient, it is difficult to identify all of these and to consider which part of the care oversight should be ascribed to each provider. The care process itself must be reengineered to build in the systems and time required to accomplish continuous evaluation and improvement.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79382,"journal":{"name":"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement","volume":"28 5","pages":"Pages 220-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1070-3241(02)28021-9","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1070324102280219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background

As part of a quality improvement initiative in the management of acute coronary syndromes, performance reports on care of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) or unstable angina (UA) who were admitted to two cardiology services at the University of Michigan Medical Center in 1999 were disseminated to a range of providers.

Methods

In 1999, data were routinely collected by chart review on presentation, comorbidities, treatments, outcomes, and key process of care indicators for nearly 300 patients with AMI and a similar number of patients with acute UA. Key process of care indicators and outcomes were the focus of the report cards for AMI and UA.

Results of survey on report cards

The return rate for the provider survey—a simple one-page, nine-item question/answer sheet—was highest among faculty who received physician-specific reports (14 out of 17; 82%). Overall, 18 (60%) of 30 providers indicated that the report was useful, 18 responded favorably to the format, and only 3 (10%) indicated that the information was repetitive. Importantly, 24 (80%) indicated a desire to see future performance reports.

Discussion

Although hospitalwide or even statewide reports have become familiar, their overall impact on care within hospitals or health systems is unknown. Because so many different caregivers affect the care of a single patient, it is difficult to identify all of these and to consider which part of the care oversight should be ascribed to each provider. The care process itself must be reengineered to build in the systems and time required to accomplish continuous evaluation and improvement.

评估急性冠状动脉综合征护理中个体提供者的表现报告
背景:作为急性冠状动脉综合征管理质量改进倡议的一部分,1999年密歇根大学医学中心两家心脏病科收治的急性心肌梗死(MI)或不稳定型心绞痛(UA)患者的护理绩效报告被分发给一系列提供者。方法1999年,对近300例AMI患者和同等数量的急性UA患者的临床表现、合并症、治疗方法、结局及关键护理过程指标进行常规资料收集。护理过程的关键指标和结果是AMI和UA报告卡的重点。报告卡上的调查结果:在收到医生特定报告的教师中,提供者调查(一份简单的一页纸,九项问题/答案表)的回报率最高(17人中有14人;82%)。总的来说,30个提供者中有18个(60%)表示报告是有用的,18个对格式反应良好,只有3个(10%)表示信息重复。重要的是,24人(80%)表示希望看到未来的绩效报告。尽管全医院甚至全州范围的报告已为人所熟知,但它们对医院或卫生系统内护理的总体影响尚不清楚。由于许多不同的护理人员影响单个患者的护理,因此很难确定所有这些,并考虑护理监督的哪一部分应归因于每个提供者。护理过程本身必须重新设计,以建立完成持续评估和改进所需的系统和时间。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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