Evidence-Based Perspectives on Pay for Performance and Quality of Patient Care and Outcomes in Emergency Medicine

Seth W. Glickman, Kevin A. Schulman, Eric D. Peterson, Michael B. Hocker, Charles B. Cairns

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Pay for performance is gaining momentum as a means to improve the quality of clinical care. Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has expanded pay for performance initiatives to incorporate 9 emergency care metrics, including indicators for cardiac, pneumonia, and stroke care. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) have published methodology for the selection and creation of performance measures for quantifying the quality of cardiovascular care. The purpose of this study is to grade each of the 9 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative emergency medicine process measures according to the ACC/AHA criteria related to clinical evidence (yes, no, indeterminate). Five of the 9 recently selected metrics in emergency medicine do not appear to meet all of the ACC/AHA criteria for measurement selection. Several of the metrics, including aspirin for acute myocardial infarction (mean hospital adherence 94.7%; SD 6.7%) and pulse oximetry for community-acquired pneumonia (mean 99.4%; SD 2.0%), already have high levels of performance nationally, which raises uncertainty about the overall cost-effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for these measures. Formal methodology needs to be established for future selection of performance measures for quality improvement programs in emergency care. These performance measures should focus on unique aspects of emergency and acute care, including recognition and treatment of time-sensitive life-threatening conditions, assessment of patients with undifferentiated signs and symptoms, and care of all-inclusive geographically based patient populations. In key emergency therapeutic areas, the evidence linking treatment and improved patient outcomes will require additional study before inclusion in pay for performance programs. New research initiatives are needed to assess the effect of timely administration of emergency department interventions on patient outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)622-631
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume51
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2008

Fingerprint

Incentive Reimbursement
Emergency Medicine
Quality of Health Care
Patient Care
Emergency Medical Services
American Heart Association
Quality Improvement
Cardiology
Pneumonia
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Oximetry
Medicaid
Medicare
Patient Selection
Aspirin
Signs and Symptoms
Uncertainty
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Hospital Emergency Service
Emergencies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Evidence-Based Perspectives on Pay for Performance and Quality of Patient Care and Outcomes in Emergency Medicine. / Glickman, Seth W.; Schulman, Kevin A.; Peterson, Eric D.; Hocker, Michael B.; Cairns, Charles B.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 5, 01.05.2008, p. 622-631.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Glickman, Seth W. ; Schulman, Kevin A. ; Peterson, Eric D. ; Hocker, Michael B. ; Cairns, Charles B. / Evidence-Based Perspectives on Pay for Performance and Quality of Patient Care and Outcomes in Emergency Medicine. In: Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 51, No. 5. pp. 622-631.
@article{13a5087c735245808c89926f61049707,
title = "Evidence-Based Perspectives on Pay for Performance and Quality of Patient Care and Outcomes in Emergency Medicine",
abstract = "Pay for performance is gaining momentum as a means to improve the quality of clinical care. Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has expanded pay for performance initiatives to incorporate 9 emergency care metrics, including indicators for cardiac, pneumonia, and stroke care. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) have published methodology for the selection and creation of performance measures for quantifying the quality of cardiovascular care. The purpose of this study is to grade each of the 9 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative emergency medicine process measures according to the ACC/AHA criteria related to clinical evidence (yes, no, indeterminate). Five of the 9 recently selected metrics in emergency medicine do not appear to meet all of the ACC/AHA criteria for measurement selection. Several of the metrics, including aspirin for acute myocardial infarction (mean hospital adherence 94.7{\%}; SD 6.7{\%}) and pulse oximetry for community-acquired pneumonia (mean 99.4{\%}; SD 2.0{\%}), already have high levels of performance nationally, which raises uncertainty about the overall cost-effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for these measures. Formal methodology needs to be established for future selection of performance measures for quality improvement programs in emergency care. These performance measures should focus on unique aspects of emergency and acute care, including recognition and treatment of time-sensitive life-threatening conditions, assessment of patients with undifferentiated signs and symptoms, and care of all-inclusive geographically based patient populations. In key emergency therapeutic areas, the evidence linking treatment and improved patient outcomes will require additional study before inclusion in pay for performance programs. New research initiatives are needed to assess the effect of timely administration of emergency department interventions on patient outcomes.",
author = "Glickman, {Seth W.} and Schulman, {Kevin A.} and Peterson, {Eric D.} and Hocker, {Michael B.} and Cairns, {Charles B.}",
year = "2008",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.01.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "622--631",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evidence-Based Perspectives on Pay for Performance and Quality of Patient Care and Outcomes in Emergency Medicine

AU - Glickman, Seth W.

AU - Schulman, Kevin A.

AU - Peterson, Eric D.

AU - Hocker, Michael B.

AU - Cairns, Charles B.

PY - 2008/5/1

Y1 - 2008/5/1

N2 - Pay for performance is gaining momentum as a means to improve the quality of clinical care. Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has expanded pay for performance initiatives to incorporate 9 emergency care metrics, including indicators for cardiac, pneumonia, and stroke care. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) have published methodology for the selection and creation of performance measures for quantifying the quality of cardiovascular care. The purpose of this study is to grade each of the 9 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative emergency medicine process measures according to the ACC/AHA criteria related to clinical evidence (yes, no, indeterminate). Five of the 9 recently selected metrics in emergency medicine do not appear to meet all of the ACC/AHA criteria for measurement selection. Several of the metrics, including aspirin for acute myocardial infarction (mean hospital adherence 94.7%; SD 6.7%) and pulse oximetry for community-acquired pneumonia (mean 99.4%; SD 2.0%), already have high levels of performance nationally, which raises uncertainty about the overall cost-effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for these measures. Formal methodology needs to be established for future selection of performance measures for quality improvement programs in emergency care. These performance measures should focus on unique aspects of emergency and acute care, including recognition and treatment of time-sensitive life-threatening conditions, assessment of patients with undifferentiated signs and symptoms, and care of all-inclusive geographically based patient populations. In key emergency therapeutic areas, the evidence linking treatment and improved patient outcomes will require additional study before inclusion in pay for performance programs. New research initiatives are needed to assess the effect of timely administration of emergency department interventions on patient outcomes.

AB - Pay for performance is gaining momentum as a means to improve the quality of clinical care. Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has expanded pay for performance initiatives to incorporate 9 emergency care metrics, including indicators for cardiac, pneumonia, and stroke care. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) have published methodology for the selection and creation of performance measures for quantifying the quality of cardiovascular care. The purpose of this study is to grade each of the 9 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative emergency medicine process measures according to the ACC/AHA criteria related to clinical evidence (yes, no, indeterminate). Five of the 9 recently selected metrics in emergency medicine do not appear to meet all of the ACC/AHA criteria for measurement selection. Several of the metrics, including aspirin for acute myocardial infarction (mean hospital adherence 94.7%; SD 6.7%) and pulse oximetry for community-acquired pneumonia (mean 99.4%; SD 2.0%), already have high levels of performance nationally, which raises uncertainty about the overall cost-effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for these measures. Formal methodology needs to be established for future selection of performance measures for quality improvement programs in emergency care. These performance measures should focus on unique aspects of emergency and acute care, including recognition and treatment of time-sensitive life-threatening conditions, assessment of patients with undifferentiated signs and symptoms, and care of all-inclusive geographically based patient populations. In key emergency therapeutic areas, the evidence linking treatment and improved patient outcomes will require additional study before inclusion in pay for performance programs. New research initiatives are needed to assess the effect of timely administration of emergency department interventions on patient outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43049178225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43049178225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.01.010

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.01.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 18358566

AN - SCOPUS:43049178225

VL - 51

SP - 622

EP - 631

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 5

ER -