Articles: outcome-assessment-health-care.
-
Critical care clinics · Jan 1994
Multicenter Study Comparative StudyThe case against using the APACHE system to predict intensive care unit outcome in trauma patients.
The use of outcome indices as a means of evaluating institutional performance for delivery of medical care is at the forefront of federal health policy reforms. Because an enormous number of clinical and financial data are generated by ICU patients, it is inevitable that integrated bedside computers will be necessary to supply the type of information that is being sought by governmental and private insurance agencies involved in assessment of hospital performance. The Health Care Financing Administration already has adopted the APACHE data collection protocols and predictive models for the severity of illness adjustments that were used in assessing the 1986 hospital-specific death rate for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, and pneumonia. ⋯ The inequities for certain subgroups of patients, including trauma patients, could create situations in which care is rationed rather than allocated according to a plan that distributes resources efficiently. The APACHE system has several shortcomings and adds little, if anything, to the potential solutions for trauma quality assurance and resource allocation. Nor has the APACHE system established procedures for documenting institutional review of unexpected trauma deaths that would be equivalent, for example, to the type of audit filters applied by the American College of Surgeons in conjunction with the TRISS methodology.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
-
Meeting the challenges of allocating critical care resources in the fairest way possible depends upon the development of a standardized strategy for apportioning ICU services in times of limited supply. Two main approaches are emerging to handle these challenges. ⋯ The second approach involves improving the efficiencies of the care giving system itself. Either approach requires the establishment of a standard of care that reduces the potential for personal biases into the decision making process.
-
Quality should be a central issue in the commissioning and provision of health care. This requires a systematic approach to defining and monitoring quality. Such an approach should address: quality characteristics such as efficiency, accessibility, effectiveness (which may conflict with each other); the several levels at which quality may be specified, from general (across all health care) to specific (particular conditions or patient groups); and the methods of quality monitoring which include documented policies, clinical audit, inspection visits/patient surveys, and routine information returns. Shows how a matrix for quality surveillance can be devised which provides a framework for purchasers and providers to work together in developing quality in health care.