Quality improvement in neurology: AAN Parkinson disease quality measures: report of the Quality Measurement and Reporting Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.3). 11/2010; 75(22):2021-7. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181ff96dd
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Measuring the quality of health care is a fundamental step toward improving health care and is increasingly used in pay-for-performance initiatives and maintenance of certification requirements. Measure development to date has focused on primary care and common conditions such as diabetes; thus, the number of measures that apply to neurologic care is limited. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) identified the need for neurologists to develop measures of neurologic care and to establish a process to accomplish this.
To adapt and test the feasibility of a process for independent development by the AAN of measures for neurologic conditions for national measurement programs.
A process that has been used nationally for measure development was adapted for use by the AAN. Topics for measure development are chosen based upon national priorities, available evidence base from a systematic literature search, gaps in care, and the potential impact for quality improvement. A panel composed of subject matter and measure development methodology experts oversees the development of the measures. Recommendation statements and their corresponding level of evidence are reviewed and considered for development into draft candidate measures. The candidate measures are refined by the expert panel during a 30-day public comment period and by review by the American Medical Association for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) II codes. All final AAN measures are approved by the AAN Board of Directors.
Parkinson disease (PD) was chosen for measure development. A review of the medical literature identified 258 relevant recommendation statements. A 28-member panel approved 10 quality measures for PD that included full specifications and CPT II codes.
The AAN has adapted a measure development process that is suitable for national measurement programs and has demonstrated its capability to independently develop quality measures.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ojectives: If hallucinations are the most common of schizophrenic symptoms, they have been described in other pathologies such as Parkinson's disease (PD) but may differ considerably in their phenomenology. However, no multi-modal clinical scale with a transnosographic approach has been developed today. The purpose of this study was to create and validate a new tool for the hetero-assessment of all sensory modalities of hallucinations schizophrenia (SCZ) and in PD. METHOD: Scale items were generated by literature review and validated by medical board. A study was then made to evaluate psychometric properties of the Psycho-Sensory hAllucinations Scale (PSAS) that include four domains (auditory, visual, olfactory and gustatory, cenesthetic modalities) and one specific item 'guardian angel'. RESULTS: It was then validated in 137 patients: 86 PD (53.5% male; mean age=53.3years) and 51 SCZ (64.7% male; mean age=38.5years). Factorial analysis of the PSAS found four factors. The PSAS showed good internal consistency [Kuder-Richardson alpha coefficient 0.49 to 0.77] and good test-retest reliability [Agreement %=0.75 to 0.97] and inter-rater reliability [Agreement %=0.78 to 1.0]. The convergent validity illustrates the concomitant evaluation of the concept between PSAS and PANSS P3 and UPDRS1 I2. CONCLUSION: The PSAS can be useful to describe the whole hallucination and its evolution during the course of the disease and treatment in schizophrenia and PD. Moreover, it can allow us to undertake a clinic-pathological comparison of hallucination modalities between these two diseases, to enhance our understanding of their precise neurological mechanisms.
    Schizophrenia Research 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.schres.2014.11.010. · 4.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The natural progression of balance decline in individuals with Parkinson disease (PD) is not well understood. Objectives: We aimed to: 1) compare the utility of three standardized clinical measures for detecting balance decline over 1-year, 2) identify components of balance susceptible to decline, and 3) identify factors useful for predicting future balance decline. Methods: Eighty people with PD (59% male; mean age 68.2 ± 9.3; Hoehn & Yahr range I-IV) completed Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) assessments. Baseline predictor variables included the MDS-UPDRS III sub-score, presence of freezing, 6-month fall history, age, gender, and physical activity. Balance and MDS-UPDRS III assessments were repeated at 6 (n = 51) and 12 months (n = 44). Results: BESTest and Mini-BESTest score declined over 6 and 12 months (P < 0.01). Postural responses, stability limits, and sensory orientation were most susceptible to decline. BBS score did not change (P > 0.01). MDS-UPDRS III score was unchanged over 6 months (P > 0.01), but declined over 12 months (P < 0.01). Change in BESTest score over 6 months was related to baseline MDS-UPDRS III, H&Y, freezing, and fall history (P < 0.05). Change in BESTest score over 12 months was related to baseline MDS-UPDRS III and freezing (P < 0.05). Change in Mini-BESTest over 12 months was related to baseline MDS-UPDRS III and age (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The BESTest and Mini-BESTest were responsive to balance decline in individuals with PD and helped to identify decline in underlying balance components. Disease severity and freezing most consistently predicted balance decline in persons with PD.
    Journal of Parkinson's Disease 12/2014; DOI:10.3233/JPD-140478 · 1.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary approach is thought to be the best way to manage the motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease, but how such care should be delivered is unknown. To address this gap in knowledge, we assessed the effectiveness of an integrated multidisciplinary approach compared with usual care. METHODS: We recruited patients for our non-randomised controlled trial from six community hospitals in the Netherlands (two in regions where the integrated care intervention was available and four in control regions that administered usual care). Eligible patients were those with Parkinson's disease, aged 20-80 years, and without severe cognitive impairment or comorbidity. Patients in the intervention group were offered an individually tailored comprehensive assessment in an expert tertiary referral centre and subsequent referrals to a regional network of allied health professionals specialised in Parkinson's disease. Primary outcomes were activities of daily living (Academic Medical Center linear disability score [ALDS]) and quality of life (Parkinson's disease quality of life questionnaire [PDQL]) measured at 4, 6, and 8 months. Secondary outcomes included motor functioning (unified Parkinson's disease rating scale, part III [UPDRS III], at 4 months), caregiver burden (belastungsfragebogen Parkinson angehorigen-kurzversion [BELA-A-k] at 4 and 8 months), and costs (during whole study period). Primary analysis was by intention to treat and included scores over 4, 6, and 8 months, with correction for baseline score. The trial is registered at, number NCT00518791. FINDINGS: We recruited 301 patients (150 patients in the intervention group and 151 in the control group) between August, 2007, and December, 2009, of whom 285 completed follow-up (last follow-up was July, 2010). 101 (67%) patients in the intervention group visited the expert centre; 49 (33%) opted not to visit the expert centre. The average ALDS score from months 4, 6, and 8, with correction for baseline score, was greater in the intervention group than in the control group (difference 1.3 points, 95% CI -2.1 to 2.8; corresponding raw logit score difference 0.1, 95% CI 0.003 to 0.2) as was the average PDQL score (difference 3.0 points, 0.4 to 5.6). Secondary analysis with correction for baseline disease severity showed no differences between groups for ALDS (difference 0.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 2.4; corresponding raw logit score difference 0.1, -0.02 to 0.3) or PDQL (difference 1.7 points, -1.2 to 4.6). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups (UPDRS III score difference 0.6 points, 95% CI -1.4 to 2.6; BELA-A-k score difference 0.8 points, -0.2 to 1.8; cost difference euro742, -euro489 to euro1950). INTERPRETATION: This integrated care approach offered only small benefits to patients with Parkinson's disease, and these disappeared after correction for baseline disease severity. These results suggest that different approaches are needed to achieve more substantial health benefits. FUNDING: NutsOhra Foundation, Stichting Parkinson Nederland, National Parkinson Foundation.
    The Lancet Neurology 10/2013; 12(10-10):947-56. DOI:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70196-0 · 21.82 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Nov 12, 2014