CMS Nonpayment Policy, Quality Improvement, and Hospital-Acquired Conditions: An Integrative Review

Pay-for-performance and patient safety in acute care: A systematic review

Pay-for-performance (p4p) has been tried in all healthcare settings to address ongoing deficiencies in the quality and outcomes of care. The evidence for the effect of these policies has been inconclusive, especially in acute care. This systematic review focused on patient safety p4p in the hospital setting. Using the PRISMA guidelines, we searched five biomedical databases for quantitative studies using at least one outcome metric from database inception to March 2023, supplemented by reference tracking and internet searches. We identified 6,122 potential titles of which 53 were included: 39 original investigations, eight literature reviews and six grey literature reports. Only five system-wide p4p policies have been implemented, and the quality of evidence was low overall. Just over half of the studies (52 %) included failed to observe improvement in outcomes, with positive findings heavily skewed towards poor quality evaluations. The exception was the Fragility Hip Fracture Best Practice Tariff (BPT) in England, where sustained improvement was observed across various evaluations. All policies had a miniscule impact on total hospital revenue. Our findings underscore the importance of simple and transparent design, involvement of the clinical community, explicit links to other quality improvement initiatives, and gradual implementation of p4p initatives. We also propose a research agenda to lift the quality of evidence in this field.

Development and Internal Validation of an Emergency Department Admission Intensity Measure Using Data From a National Group

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We develop and assess variation in an emergency department (ED) admission intensity measure intended for value-based payment models. The measure includes ED diagnoses amenable to evidence-based protocols and where admission decisions vary based on physician discretion.

METHODS

Measure International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were selected by face validity by 3 emergency physicians using expertise and administrative data. Feedback was sought from a separate technical panel. Using data from a national group (2018 to 2019), we assessed measure stability at the physician and facility level by quarter using descriptive plots, multilevel linear probability models, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

A total of 535 ICD-10 measure codes were selected from 23,590 codes. Across 127 EDs, facility-quarter admission rates averaged 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.5 to 27.7). Between- and within-facility standard deviations were 9.2 (95% CI 8.2 to 10.5) and 2.9 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.0), respectively, with an ICC of 0.91. Most ED-quarters (749/961) fell within 2.5% of their facility's average. Among 2,398 physicians, quarterly rates averaged 29.1% (95% CI 28.6 to 29.6). The between- and within-physician standard deviation was 6.3 (95% CI 6.1 to 6.5) and 5.3 (95% CI 5.3 to 5.4), respectively, with an ICC of 0.58; 220 physicians (9.2%) had an admission rate consistently higher than average and 193 (8.0%) consistently lower.

CONCLUSION

This set of ICD-10 diagnoses demonstrates face validity and stability for quarterly admission rates at the facility and physician levels. The measure may be useful to monitor facility admission rates in value-based models and reliably identify high and low admitters within facilities to manage admission variation.

Pressure injury prevalence and incidence in acute inpatient care and related risk factors: A cross-sectional national study

The aim of this national cross‐sectional study was to explore the prevalence of pressure injuries and incidence of hospital‐acquired pressure injuries, and the relating factors in somatic‐specialised inpatient care in Finland. The study was conducted in 16 (out of 21) Finnish health care organisations offering specialised health care services. Data were collected in 2018 and 2019 from adult patients (N = 5902) in inpatient, emergency follow‐up, and rehabilitation units. Pressure injury prevalence (all stages/categories) was 12.7%, and the incidence of hospital‐acquired pressure injuries was 10%. Of the participants, 2.6% had at least one pressure injury at admission. The risk of hospital‐acquired pressure injuries was increased for medical patients with a higher age, the inability to move independently, mode of arrival, being underweight, and the absence of a skin assessment or pressure injury risk assessment at admission. For surgical patients, the risk was associated with the inability to move independently, mode of arrival, and lack of skin assessment at admission, while being overweight protected the patients. Overall, medical patients were in greater risk of hospital‐acquired pressure injuries than the surgical patients. An assessment of the pressure injury risk and skin status should be carried out more systematically in Finnish acute care hospitals.

Perioperative Harm Index facilitates prioritization of improvement initiatives

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative services constitute a significant portion of the care delivery, the impact, and the potential risk in healthcare organizations. Tremendous attention has been paid towards hospital-acquired conditions; however perioperative services have not received similar attention. There is a need for a standardized manner to report on conditions in perioperative services which facilitates prioritization of quality improvement initiatives.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preventable harm and quality of care indicators were selected based on a review of the literature and available datasets, as well as from safety and quality measures in our organization. Metrics were derived from myriad national quality improvement initiatives and collaboratives. A structure was created to obtain the metrics in a near real-time manner and present the Perioperative Harm Index across the organization. Specific initiatives were targeted as necessitating immediate, short-term, or longer duration prioritization for improvement initiatives.

RESULTS

A Perioperative Harm Index was created using 11 metrics that represent the spectrum of surgical care. The metrics facilitate prioritization of improvement initiatives and have resulted in improvement projects including perioperative normothermia in neonatal intensive care unit patients having procedures in the operating room, reduction of post-operative nausea and vomiting, and decrease in surgical site infections in selected procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

A Perioperative Harm Index facilitates immediate shared understanding of the harm resulting from the care of surgical patients. As such, this index enables rapid and rationale prioritization for improvement activities. Our harm index is shared, is broadly generalizable, and has facilitated prioritization of improvement opportunities and appropriate allocation of improvement resources at our organization.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Technical rationality and the decentring of patients and care delivery: A critique of 'unavoidable' in the context of patient harm

In recent decades, debate on the quality and safety of healthcare has been dominated by a measure and manage administrative rationality. More recently, this rationality has been overlaid by ideas from human factors, ergonomics and systems engineering. Little critical attention has been given in the nursing literature to how risk of harm is understood and actioned, or how patients can be subjectified and marginalised through these discourses. The problem of assuring safety for particular patient groups, and the dominance of technical forms of rationality, has seen the word 'unavoidable' used in connection with intractable forms of patient harm. Employing pressure injury policy as an exemplar, and critically reviewing notions of risk and unavoidable harm, we problematise the concept of unavoidable patient harm, highlighting how this dominant safety rationality risks perverse and taken-for-granted assumptions about patients, care processes and the nature of risk and harm. In this orthodoxy, those who specify or measure risk are positioned as having more insight into the nature of risk, compared to those who simply experience risk. Driven almost exclusively as a technical and administrative pursuit, the patient safety agenda risks decentring the focus from patients and patient care.