1 / 11

Future Validation and Improvement of the AHRQ QI

This presentation discusses past and future validation efforts for the AHRQ Quality Indicators, including face validity and coding validity. It also highlights the importance of collaboration and research feedback in improving the indicators. The presentation provides examples of research feedback that resulted in indicator reassignment, modifying guidance, and improving the coding structure. It concludes by inviting users to share their research on validation, quality improvement programs, and special populations.

phartman
Download Presentation

Future Validation and Improvement of the AHRQ QI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Future Validation and Improvement of the AHRQ QI AHRQ Annual Conference September 10, 2008 Bethesda, MD Presented by Kathryn McDonald

  2. ValidationWhere we have been • AHRQ QI team activities • Face validity of indicators through panel review • Coding validity through chart review of selected PSIs • Outside research • POA • Coding validity • Resource use

  3. ValidationWhere we are headed next • Next up on the AHRQ sponsored validation • Continued chart reviews • More PSIs, estimating false positives • Examination of under-reporting of PSIs • Creation of chart review tools • PQI Validation • Extending the face validity of the indicators through panel review • New tools for using the PQIs • Additional work on Patient Safety Indicators • Assessment of new coding and POA • Additional work on Neonatal Indicators/Pediatric Indicators • Assessment of coding validity for BSI • Risk Adjustment Development and Validation

  4. Our Progress Depends on Collaboration • Continuous feedback loop from validation work and user feedback creates better indicators • Spans all sizes of research projects • Peer reviewed to individual hospital investigations • Informs potential feedback, guidance on indicator use, and in some cases indicator reassignment • Spawns additional validation studies

  5. Research put to work

  6. Examples of Research FeedbackIndicator Reassignment • Complications of Anesthesia • Several user reports noted that minor reactions such as pruritis were coded. • Investigation of coding guidelines found that E-codes used in this indicator allowed for coding of these minor reactions. • No way to “fix” indicator found • Indicator will be reassigned as an “experimental indicator”

  7. Examples of Research FeedbackModifying Guidance • Present on Admission Research • Several recent studies have highlighted POA rates in the Patient Safety Indicators • Highlighted indicators for which POA is an important data element • Guidance to use these indicators only with POA, software modified to require POA in some cases, and NQF endorsement conditional on POA

  8. Examples of Research FeedbackModifying Coding Structure • Transfusion Reaction • Intricacies in coding aren’t always obvious in ICD-9-CM coding • NACHRI supported research of the PDIs identified cases of transfusion reaction from minor antigens instead of ABO • Minor antigens indexed to ABO code • Proposal to separate transfusion reactions due to ABO from those due to minor antigens to improve the specificity of this indicator

  9. Examples of Research Feedback Improving the Indicator • Respiratory Failure • Initial definition relied on diagnosis code for identifying numerator cases • VA based study found low sensitivity for dx code • Further investigation by VA team identified procedure codes for delayed extubation and post-operative re-intubation improved sensitivity without significantly decreasing specificity • AHRQ team investigated generalizability of these findings using the HCUP data and… • Added the new procedure codes to the definition • But the story doesn’t end there…

  10. Examples of Research Feedback Improving the Indicator • Respiratory Failure • Procedure codes were imported into new pediatric indicator • NACHRI directed study identified children with expected extended intubations not related to respiratory failure • Consulting with experts and through data analysis AHRQ team identified specific operations for which intubation is extended (e.g. tracheal procedures) • Some cases generalizable to the adult indicator • Continued work with NACHRI team to ensure that the solution truly improves specificity of indicator

  11. The Path for Future Research • Many user experiences, small and large validation studies happening outside of AHRQ • These studies allow us to improve indicators and ultimately hospital quality • Tell us about your research on: • Validation (sensitivity and specificity) • Quality Improvement Programs • Special Populations

More Related