Cargando…

Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study

BACKGROUND: Patient complexity is not incorporated into quality of care comparisons for glycemic control. We developed a method to adjust hemoglobin A1c levels for patient characteristics that reflect complexity, and examined the effect of using adjusted A1c values on quality comparisons. METHODS: T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Safford, Monika M, Brimacombe, Michael, Zhang, Quanwu, Rajan, Mangala, Xie, Minge, Thompson, Wesley, Kolassa, John, Maney, Miriam, Pogach, Leonard
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19126229
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-2
_version_ 1782164024085970944
author Safford, Monika M
Brimacombe, Michael
Zhang, Quanwu
Rajan, Mangala
Xie, Minge
Thompson, Wesley
Kolassa, John
Maney, Miriam
Pogach, Leonard
author_facet Safford, Monika M
Brimacombe, Michael
Zhang, Quanwu
Rajan, Mangala
Xie, Minge
Thompson, Wesley
Kolassa, John
Maney, Miriam
Pogach, Leonard
author_sort Safford, Monika M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient complexity is not incorporated into quality of care comparisons for glycemic control. We developed a method to adjust hemoglobin A1c levels for patient characteristics that reflect complexity, and examined the effect of using adjusted A1c values on quality comparisons. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study used 1999 national VA (US Department of Veterans Affairs) pharmacy, inpatient and outpatient utilization, and laboratory data on diabetic veterans. We adjusted individual A1c levels for available domains of complexity: age, social support (marital status), comorbid illnesses, and severity of disease (insulin use). We used adjusted A1c values to generate VA medical center level performance measures, and compared medical center ranks using adjusted versus unadjusted A1c levels across several thresholds of A1c (8.0%, 8.5%, 9.0%, and 9.5%). RESULTS: The adjustment model had R(2 )= 8.3% with stable parameter estimates on thirty random 50% resamples. Adjustment for patient complexity resulted in the greatest rank differences in the best and worst performing deciles, with similar patterns across all tested thresholds. CONCLUSION: Adjustment for complexity resulted in large differences in identified best and worst performers at all tested thresholds. Current performance measures of glycemic control may not be reliably identifying quality problems, and tying reimbursements to such measures may compromise the care of complex patients.
format Text
id pubmed-2632611
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26326112009-01-29 Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study Safford, Monika M Brimacombe, Michael Zhang, Quanwu Rajan, Mangala Xie, Minge Thompson, Wesley Kolassa, John Maney, Miriam Pogach, Leonard Implement Sci Research Article BACKGROUND: Patient complexity is not incorporated into quality of care comparisons for glycemic control. We developed a method to adjust hemoglobin A1c levels for patient characteristics that reflect complexity, and examined the effect of using adjusted A1c values on quality comparisons. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study used 1999 national VA (US Department of Veterans Affairs) pharmacy, inpatient and outpatient utilization, and laboratory data on diabetic veterans. We adjusted individual A1c levels for available domains of complexity: age, social support (marital status), comorbid illnesses, and severity of disease (insulin use). We used adjusted A1c values to generate VA medical center level performance measures, and compared medical center ranks using adjusted versus unadjusted A1c levels across several thresholds of A1c (8.0%, 8.5%, 9.0%, and 9.5%). RESULTS: The adjustment model had R(2 )= 8.3% with stable parameter estimates on thirty random 50% resamples. Adjustment for patient complexity resulted in the greatest rank differences in the best and worst performing deciles, with similar patterns across all tested thresholds. CONCLUSION: Adjustment for complexity resulted in large differences in identified best and worst performers at all tested thresholds. Current performance measures of glycemic control may not be reliably identifying quality problems, and tying reimbursements to such measures may compromise the care of complex patients. BioMed Central 2009-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC2632611/ /pubmed/19126229 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-2 Text en Copyright © 2009 Safford et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Safford, Monika M
Brimacombe, Michael
Zhang, Quanwu
Rajan, Mangala
Xie, Minge
Thompson, Wesley
Kolassa, John
Maney, Miriam
Pogach, Leonard
Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study
title Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study
title_full Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study
title_fullStr Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study
title_full_unstemmed Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study
title_short Patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: An observational study
title_sort patient complexity in quality comparisons for glycemic control: an observational study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19126229
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-2
work_keys_str_mv AT saffordmonikam patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT brimacombemichael patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT zhangquanwu patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT rajanmangala patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT xieminge patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT thompsonwesley patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT kolassajohn patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT maneymiriam patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy
AT pogachleonard patientcomplexityinqualitycomparisonsforglycemiccontrolanobservationalstudy