540 likes | 727 Views
Objectives. Argue for the importance of quality of care research;Describe an outcomes-based definition of quality;Develop a tentative research agendaDescribe and discuss various outcome measuresDevelop a preliminary proposal for a longitudinal study of quality of care . Importance. Quality repor
E N D
1. Studying the Quality of Primary Care Jim Mold, M.D., M.P.H.
University of Oklahoma
Chris van Weel, M.D., Ph.D.
University Medical Center Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2. Objectives Argue for the importance of quality of care research;
Describe an outcomes-based definition of quality;
Develop a tentative research agenda
Describe and discuss various outcome measures
Develop a preliminary proposal for a longitudinal study of quality of care
3. Importance Quality report cards and competition for patients
Pay-for-performance
Survival of primary care
Why not just have NPs and PAs follow clinical practice guidelines?
4. Quality Indicators CAD
DM
CHF
HTN
Preventive Care
5. Quality Indicators CAD
Lipid profile
LDL cholesterol level
Blood pressure level
Anti-platelet therapy
Drug to lower LDL cholesterol
Beta blocker if prior MI
ACE inhibitor therapy
6. Quality Indicators DM
A1c measurement
A1c level
Lipid measurement
LDL cholesterol level
Blood pressure level
Urine protein testing
Foot exam
Eye exam
7. Potential Problems Life prolongation may not be a goal (e.g. patient with terminal illness, dementia)
Risk of adverse events may be low (e.g. blindness, ESRD in an older diabetic)
All indicators have equal weight though impact on outcomes differ greatly
No credit for progress in a particular patient (e.g. BP lowered from 200 to 140)
In patients with multiple chronic conditions, prioritization is often necessary
People aren’t widgets. Some variability is desirable.
8. An Alternative Approach High quality care involves doing the things most likely to help patients achieve the health-related goals they have established in consultation with the health care team.
Interventions that should be pursued are those that are most likely to increase the probability of the outcomes desired by each patient.
9. Case Example 65 y.o. Caucasian, non-smoker, with a 5-year history of Type 2 DM. No end-organ damage. BMI 27, BP 140/90, LDL 120, HDL 45, A1c 10%.
10. Quality Indicators DM
A1c measurement
A1c level
Lipid measurement
LDL cholesterol level
Blood pressure level
Urine protein testing
Foot exam
Eye exam
11. Risk Engines DiabForecaster Risk Engine
Sheffield University Risk Engine
UKPDS Risk Engine**
CDC/RTI Risk Engine
CORE Risk Engine
EAGLE Risk Engine
PHD Risk Engine**
12. Diabetes Personal Health Decisions (PHD) Engine Archimedes program
Attempts to model diabetes by including >100 biological variables, symptoms, signs, tests, treatments, and outcomes
Uses differential equations and object-oriented programming to model the links between variables
Keeps all continuous variables continuous
13. PHD Validation Subjected to a series of 74 validation exercises involving 18 clinical trials, 10 of which were not used in the construction of the engine
Correlation between results of PHD simulations and clinical trials overall was astounding (r=0.99)
Correlation between absolute differences in outcomes also amazing (r=0.97)
14. Life Prolongation 10-yr. Risk of MI 27%
--------------------------------------------
Aspirin 81mg/day -11%
Lower BP to 120 -7%
Lower BP to 130 -4%
Lower A1c to 7% -5%
Lower A1c to 8.5% -2%
Lower LDL to 70 -6%
Lower LDL to 90 -4%
15. CDC Risk Engine Months of life gained from various interventions in an average 55 y.o. type 2 diabetic:
LDL (<100 with statin): 8 months
BP (<130/80): 6 months
ACEI (aside from BP effect): 2 months
BG (<7.0 with metformin): 4 months
BG (<7 with other agents): < 1month
CDC Cost Effectiveness Group. JAMA 2002; 287 (19):2542-2551
Bjorholt, et al. J Intern Med. 2002; 251(6): 508
16. Quality of Life With no A1c reduction, this patient’s 10-year risks of developing blindness, end-stage renal disease, and amputation are 0.73%, 0%, and 0.15%.
Reducing A1c from 10% to 7% would change those risks to 0.67%, 0%, and 0.15%.
Symptoms of hyperglycemia could be relieved by lowering A1c to 8%.
17. CDC Risk Engine End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) by age at diagnosis of DM:
Age at Dx A1c Lifetime Risk_
55 7.0 0.9%
55 9.0 1.6%
65 7.0 0.3%
65 9.0 0.6%
18. CDC Risk Engine Blindness from DM Retinopathy by age at diagnosis of DM:
Age at Dx A1c Lifetime Risk
55 7.0 0.1%
55 9.0 1.2%
65 7.0 <0.1%
65 9.0 0.5%
19. Case Example 65 y.o. Caucasian non-smoker with a 5-year history of Type 2 DM. No end-organ damage. BMI 30, BP 140/90, LDL 140, HDL 38, A1c 10%.
Assuming that both life prolongation and prevention of disabilities are goals:
ASA plus reduction of BP to 130, A1c to 8, LDL to 70 would account for 90% of the benefits that could be obtained from medical interventions. (Urine for protein, eye and foot exams would add almost nothing.)