In­di­vid­ual physi­cian per­for­mance … re­duc­ing di­ag­nos­tic er­rors … im­prov­ing per­for­mance mea­sure­ment

Modern Healthcare - - NEWS - By Sabriya Rice

A fo­cus on in­di­vid­ual physi­cian per­for­mance, re­duc­ing di­ag­nos­tic er­rors, stan­dard­iz­ing per­for­mance mea­sures and re­think­ing pa­tient sat­is­fac­tion will be among the top agenda items for health­care qual­ity and safety lead­ers in 2016.

Dr. John Tous­saint, CEO of the ThedaCare Cen­ter for Health­care Value, said there will be a greater fo­cus on in­di­vid­ual physi­cians when it comes to qual­ity re­port­ing and value-based pay­ment in 2016. He pointed to Medi­care’s new value-based physi­cian pay­ment sys­tem for which providers must be­gin preparing even though it doesn’t go into ef­fect un­til 2019. The Merit-Based In­cen­tive Pay­ment Sys­tem makes it eas­ier to an­a­lyze episodes of care de­liv­ered by in­di­vid­ual doc­tors. “It’s been a slow change, but it’s clearly what we need to do to get off of the fee-for-ser­vice gravy train,” Tous­saint said.

Dr. Robert Wachter, chief of the di­vi­sion of hos­pi­tal medicine at the Univer­sity of Cal­i­for­nia at San Francisco, said there is grow­ing at­ten­tion to di­ag­nos­tic er­rors, with the 2015 release of a Na­tional Acad­emy of Medicine re­port on the is­sue. More em­pha­sis will be placed on fix­ing the prob­lem in the year ahead. Re­lated to that is physi­cian burnout. “Un­til we ad­dress this, the qual­ity, safety and im­prove­ment move­ment will be stunted,” he said.

The push for a na­tional board that sets stan­dards for provider per­for­mance mea­sures also may gain mo­men­tum. The pro­fu­sion of dif­fer­ent mea­sures and ques­tions about their va­lid­ity have gen­er­ated grow­ing angst, es­pe­cially as per­for­mance on those mea­sures be­comes in­creas­ingly linked to fi­nan­cial re­wards and penal­ties. Qual­ity lead­ers from var­i­ous health­care or­ga­ni­za­tions have called for per­for­mance rat­ing groups to co­or­di­nate their ef­forts and more closely ex­am­ine their mea­sure­ment method­olo­gies.

“We need stan­dards for look­ing at the va­lid­ity, im­por­tance and fea­si­bil­ity of new and ex­ist­ing met­rics,” said Dr. Peter Pronovost, di­rec­tor of the Arm­strong In­sti­tute for Pa­tient Safety and Qual­ity at Johns Hop­kins Medicine. “We don’t have that de­gree of ro­bust­ness right now.”

Fi­nally, as health­care or­ga­ni­za­tions marry qual­ity of care with pa­tient en­gage­ment and ex­pe­ri­ence, there may be a shift from use of the term “pa­tient sat­is­fac­tion,” said Air­ica Steed, chief cus­tomer ex­pe­ri­ence of­fi­cer at OhioHealth.

The term is a mis­nomer that im­plies a “warm and fuzzy” fac­tor, she said. But in health­care, the end goal is not pri­mar­ily to make pa­tients happy, but to of­fer the high­est qual­ity of care and best out­comes pos­si­ble. “If you only ap­proach it from the as­pect of cus­tomer ser­vice, you com­pletely miss the boat,” she said.

“We need stan­dards for look­ing at the va­lid­ity, im­por­tance and fea­si­bil­ity of new and ex­ist­ing met­rics. We don’t have that de­gree of ro­bust­ness right now.” Dr. Peter Pronovost, di­rec­tor of the Arm­strong In­sti­tute for Pa­tient Safety and Qual­ity at Johns Hop­kins Medicine

GETTY IM­AGES

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.