The Potential Effects Of HEDIS Performance Measures On The Quality Of Care

Archimedes Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 09/2008; 27(5):1429-41. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1429
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We analyzed the potential effects of different levels of performance on eight Health Care Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures for cardiovascular disease and diabetes during 1995-2005. The measures targeted 3.3 million (25 percent) heart attacks. Improvements in performance to those achieved by the median plan in 2005 imply prevention of 1.9 million myocardial infarctions (MIs, 15 percent), 0.8 million strokes (8 percent), and 0.1 million cases of end-stage renal disease (17 percent). If performance had been 100 percent, 1.4 million more MIs would have been prevented. Control of blood pressure has the largest potential effect on quality at the national level.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We propose ontology for which agents communicate with human and other agents according to an environmental information situation. Recently, various types of robot and information tool are developed and used. But still now, the system is promoted by human and is developed by human. The system cannot build interaction between human. And the agent processes information all by itself, which cannot utilize relationship with human or other agents. Therefore, we focus attention on ontology technology. Human can communicate with other that combined with a situation and body language. This is because human has the ontology. The agent created the ontology from observed human motion and situation, and communication with human or other agents use ontology. In this paper, we show the composition of ontology from the interaction between human and agent, and experiment of the communication with robot using ontology.
    Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004. (IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on; 01/2004
  • Source
    Public Health Reports 01/2010; 125(5):628-33. DOI:10.2307/41434818 · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Achieving full benefits of blood pressure control in populations requires prompt recognition of previously undetected hypertension. In 2003, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure provided definitions of hypertension and recommended that single elevated readings be confirmed within 1 to 2 months. We sought to determine whether the time required to confirm and recognize (ie, diagnose and/or treat) new-onset hypertension decreased from 2002 to 2006 for adult members of 2 large integrated healthcare delivery systems, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Colorado. Using electronically stored office blood pressure readings, physician diagnoses, and pharmacy prescriptions, we identified 200 587 patients with new-onset hypertension (2002-2006) marked by 2 consecutive elevated blood pressure readings in previously undiagnosed, untreated members. Mean confirmation intervals (time from the first to second consecutive elevated reading) declined steadily from 103 to 89 days during this period. For persons recognized within 12 months after confirmation, the mean interval to recognition declined from 78 to 61 days. However, only 33% of individuals were recognized within 12 months. One third were never recognized during observed follow-up. For these patients, most subsequent blood pressure recordings were not elevated. Higher initial blood pressure levels, history of previous cardiovascular disease, and older age were associated with shorter times to recognition. Times to confirmation and recognition of new-onset hypertension have become shorter in recent years, especially for patients with higher cardiovascular disease risk. Variability in office-based blood pressure readings suggests that further improvements in recognition and treatment may be achieved with more specific automated approaches to identifying hypertension.
    Hypertension 10/2010; 56(4):605-11. DOI:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.153528 · 7.63 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications