Adherence to Measuring What Matters Measures Using Point-of-Care Data Collection Across Diverse Clinical Settings

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Arif H. Kamal ; MD ; MHS^a ; ^{arif.kamal@duke.edu" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Janet Bull ; MD^b ; Christine S. Ritchie ; MD ; MSPH^c ; Jean S. Kutner ; MD ; MSPH^d ; Laura C. Hanson ; MD^e ; Fred Friedman ; BA^a ; Donald H. Taylor Jr. ; PhD^a ; ; the AAHPM Research Committee Writing GroupRebecca A. Aslakson ; MD ; PhD ; Katherine Ast ; MSW ; LCSW ; Ronit Elk ; PhD ; Kimberly K. Garner ; MD ; Robert Gramling ; MD ; DSc ; Corita Grudzen ; MD ; MSHS ; Arif H. Kamal ; MD ; MHS ; Sangeeta Lamba ; MD ; MSHPEd ; Thomas W. LeBlanc ; MD ; MA ; Ramona L. Rhodes ; MD ; MPH ; Eric Roeland ; MD ; Dena Schulman-Green ; PhD ; Kathleen T. Unroe ; MD ; MHA
• 关键词：Quality ; quality measures ; Measuring What Matters ; implementation ; alliance ; collaboratives
• 刊名：Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：51
• 期：3
• 页码：497-503
• 全文大小：106 K

文摘

Measuring What Matters (MWM) for palliative care has prioritized data collection efforts for evaluating quality in clinical practice. How these measures can be implemented across diverse clinical settings using point-of-care data collection on quality is unknown.

Objectives

To evaluate the implementation of MWM measures by exploring documentation of quality measure adherence across six diverse clinical settings inherent to palliative care practice.

Methods

We deployed a point-of-care quality data collection system, the Quality Data Collection Tool, across five organizations within the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group. Quality measures were recorded by clinicians or assistants near care delivery.

Results

During the study period, 1989 first visits were included for analysis. Our population was mostly white, female, and with moderate performance status. About half of consultations were seen on hospital general floors. We observed a wide range of adherence. The lowest adherence involved comprehensive assessments during the first visit in hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit (2.71%); the highest adherence across all settings, with an implementation of >95%, involved documentation of management of moderate/severe pain. We observed differences in adherence across clinical settings especially with MWM Measure #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms, range 45.7%–81.8%); MWM Measure #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs, range 46.1%–96.1%); and MWM Measure #6 (Documentation of Spiritual/Religious Concerns, range 0–69.6%).

Conclusion

Variations in clinician documentation of adherence to MWM quality measures are seen across clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to better understand benchmarks and acceptable ranges for adherence tailored to various clinical settings.