Who Is at Geatest Risk for Receiving Poor-Quality Health Care?

Department of Medicine , University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, United States
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 55.87). 03/2006; 354(11):1147-56. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa044464
Source: PubMed


American adults frequently do not receive recommended health care. The extent to which the quality of health care varies among sociodemographic groups is unknown.
We used data from medical records and telephone interviews of a random sample of people living in 12 communities to assess the quality of care received by those who had made at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous two years. We constructed aggregate scores from 439 indicators of the quality of care for 30 chronic and acute conditions and for disease prevention. We estimated the rates at which members of different sociodemographic subgroups received recommended care, with adjustment for the number of chronic and acute conditions, use of health care services, and other sociodemographic characteristics.
Overall, participants received 54.9 percent of recommended care. Even after adjustment, there was only moderate variation in quality-of-care scores among sociodemographic subgroups. Women had higher overall scores than men (56.6 percent vs. 52.3 percent, P<0.001), and participants below the age of 31 years had higher scores than those over the age of 64 years (57.5 percent vs. 52.1 percent, P<0.001). Blacks (57.6 percent) and Hispanics (57.5 percent) had slightly higher scores than whites (54.1 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons). Those with annual household incomes over 50,000 dollars had higher scores than those with incomes of less than 15,000 dollars (56.6 percent vs. 53.1 percent, P<0.001).
The differences among sociodemographic subgroups in the observed quality of health care are small in comparison with the gap for each subgroup between observed and desirable quality of health care. Quality-improvement programs that focus solely on reducing disparities among sociodemographic subgroups may miss larger opportunities to improve care.

Download full-text


Available from: Claude Messan Setodji, Jul 24, 2014
  • Source
    • "Some harm is caused by healthcare professional error arising from factors such as poor system and equipment design, and high workload [4,5]. Other harm results from deviations from guidelines and policies; only between 50 and 70% of patients receive recommended care [6,7]. Interventions to change professional behavior have modest and variable effects [8]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is evidence of unsafe care in healthcare systems globally. Interventions to implement recommended practice often have modest and variable effects. Ideally, selecting and adapting interventions according to local contexts should enhance effects. However, the means by which this can happen is seldom systematic, based on theory, or made transparent. This work aimed to demonstrate the applicability, feasibility, and acceptability of a theoretical domains framework implementation (TDFI) approach for co-designing patient safety interventions. We worked with three hospitals to support the implementation of evidence-based guidance to reduce the risk of feeding into misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes. Our stepped process, informed by the TDF and key principles from implementation literature, entailed: involving stakeholders; identifying target behaviors; identifying local factors (barriers and levers) affecting behavior change using a TDF-based questionnaire; working with stakeholders to generate specific local strategies to address key barriers; and supporting stakeholders to implement strategies. Exit interviews and audit data collection were undertaken to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this approach. Following audit and discussion, implementation teams for each Trust identified the process of checking the positioning of nasogastric tubes prior to feeding as the key behavior to target. Questionnaire results indicated differences in key barriers between organizations. Focus groups generated innovative, generalizable, and adaptable strategies for overcoming barriers, such as awareness events, screensavers, equipment modifications, and interactive learning resources. Exit interviews identified themes relating to the benefits, challenges, and sustainability of this approach. Time trend audit data were collected for 301 patients over an 18-month period for one Trust, suggesting clinically significant improved use of pH and documentation of practice following the intervention. The TDF is a feasible and acceptable framework to guide the implementation of patient safety interventions. The stepped TDFI approach engages healthcare professionals and facilitates contextualization in identifying the target behavior, eliciting local barriers, and selecting strategies to address those barriers. This approach may be of use to implementation teams and policy makers, although our promising findings confirm the need for a more rigorous evaluation; a balanced block evaluation is currently underway.
    Implementation Science 10/2013; 8(1):123. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-8-123 · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Despite the emphasis by healthcare leaders, government agencies and professional organisations that health care delivery should be based on high quality evidence, a significant gap exists between recommendations for evidence based care and actual clinical care provided to patients and populations (Grimshaw et al. 2004). It is estimated that 30–45% of patients do not receive proven, effective treatments, while 20–25% of care is unnecessary or potentially harmful (McGlynn et al. 2003, Asch et al. 2006). For example, chart audit findings in a recent pilot guideline implementation study showed that no patients with diabetic foot ulcers were assessed for sensation in their feet (the greatest predictor of healing complications), despite evidence based guideline recommendations that all patients have this assessment completed by a registered healthcare professional (Gifford et al. 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding the types of barriers that exist when implementing change can assist healthcare managers to tailor implementation strategies for optimal patient outcomes. The aim of this paper is to present an organising framework, the Barriers Assessment Taxonomy, for understanding barriers to nurses' use of clinical practice guideline recommendations. Barriers to recommendations are illustrated using the Barriers Assessment Taxonomy and insights discussed. As part of a pilot implementation study, semi-structured interviews (n = 26) were conducted to understand barriers to nurses' use of nine guideline recommendations for diabetic foot ulcers. Content analysis of verbatim transcripts included thematic coding and categorising barriers using the Barriers Assessment Taxonomy. Nineteen barriers were associated with nine recommendations, crossing five levels of the health care delivery system. The Barriers Assessment Taxonomy revealed that all recommendations had individual and organisational level barriers, with one recommendation having barriers at all levels. Individual level barriers were most frequent and lack of knowledge and skills was the only barrier that crossed all recommendations. The Barriers Assessment Taxonomy provides a framework for nursing managers to understand the complexity of barriers that exist, and can assist in choosing intervention strategies to support improved quality care and patient outcomes.
    Journal of Nursing Management 07/2013; 21(5):762-70. DOI:10.1111/jonm.12129 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "It has also been reported that in Europe there are wide differences in treatment offered to patients with breast cancer in terms of mastectomy and radiotherapy rates and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy, which results in considerable survival differences [2,3]. These observations highlight a gap between optimal and actual care, that is, between what evidence has identified as recommended care and what patients actually receive [4]. They show that there is a worldwide need for tools to improve adherence to guidelines in the daily clinical practice. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Due to increasing the complexity of breast cancer treatment it is of paramount importance to develop structured care in order to avoid a chaotic and non-consistent management of patients. Clinical pathways, a result of the adaptation of the documents used in industrial quality management namely the Standard Operating Procedures, can be used to improve efficiency and quality of care. They also aim to re-centre the focus on the patient’s overall journey, rather than the contribution of each specialty or caring function independently. Methods The effect of the implementation and prospective systematic evaluation of a clinical care pathway for the management of patients with early breast cancer in a single breast unit is evaluated over a long time interval (between 2002 and 2010). Annual analysis of predefined clinical outcome measures, service indicators, team indicators, process indicators and financial indicators was performed. Pathway quality control meetings were organized at least once a year. Systematic feedback was given to the team members, and if necessary the pathway was adapted according to evidence based literature data and in house pathway related data in order to improve quality. Results The annual number of patients included in the pathway (289 vs. 390, P <0.01), proportion of patients with Tis-T1 tumors (42% vs. 58%, P <0.01), negative lymph nodes (44% vs. 58%, P <0.01) and no metastases at diagnosis (91.5% vs. 95.9%) has risen significantly between 2002 and 2010. Evolution of mandatory quality indicators defined by EUSOMA shows a significant improvement of quality of cancer care. Particularly, the proportion of patients having anti-hormonal therapy (84.8% vs. 97.4%, P = 0.002) and adjuvant chemotherapy according to the guidelines (72% vs. 95.6%, P = 0.028) increased dramatically. Patient satisfaction improved significantly (P <0.05). Progression free 4-year survival was significantly higher for all patients, for T1 tumors only and for T2-T4 tumors only, treated between 2006 to 2008 compared to between 1999 to 2002 and 2003 to 2005 (P = 0.006, P = 0.05, P = 0.06, respectively). Overall 4-year survival of the entire population treated between 2006 and 2008 was significantly better (P = 0.05). Conclusions Although the patient characteristics changed over the years due to better screening, this clinical pathway and regular audit of quality indicators for the treatment of patients with operable breast cancer proved to be important tools to improve the quality of care, patient satisfaction and outcome.
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology 03/2013; 11(1):70. DOI:10.1186/1477-7819-11-70 · 1.41 Impact Factor
Show more