Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:23:31.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Experts Understand Performance Measures? A Mixed-Methods Study of Infection Preventionists

Part of: SHEA Research Network Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2017

Sushant Govindan ,
Beth Wallace ,
Theodore J. Iwashyna  and
Vineet Chopra
Sushant Govindan*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Beth Wallace
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Theodore J. Iwashyna
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Vineet Chopra
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan Patient Safety Enhancement Program, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
*
Address correspondence to Sushant Govindan, MD, Taubman Center FL 3 Rm 3920, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, SPC 5360, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (sushantg@med.umich.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite a nationwide decline in CLABSI rates, individual hospital success in preventing CLABSI is variable. Difficulty in interpreting and applying complex CLABSI metrics may explain this problem. Therefore, we assessed expert interpretation of CLABSI quality data. DESIGN. Cross-sectional survey PARTICIPANTS. Members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) METHODS. We administered a 10-item test of CLABSI data comprehension. The primary outcome was percent correct of attempted questions pertaining to the CLABSI data. We also assessed expert perceptions of CLABSI reporting.

RESULTS

The response rate was 51% (n=67).Among experts, the average proportion of correct responses was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69%–77%). Expert performance on unadjusted data was significantly better than risk-adjusted data (86% [95% CI, 81%–90%] vs 65% [95% CI, 60%–70%]; P<.001). Using a scale of 1 to 100 (0, never reliable; 100, always reliable), experts rated the reliability of CLABSI data as 61. Perceived reliability showed a significant inverse relationship with performance (r=–0.28; P=.03), and as interpretation of data improved, perceptions regarding reliability of those data decreased. Experts identified concerns regarding understanding and applying CLABSI definitions as barriers to care.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variability in the interpretation of CLABSI data exists among experts. This finding is likely related to data complexity, particularly with respect to risk-adjusted data. Improvements appear necessary in data sharing and public policy efforts to account for this complexity.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:71–76

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 71 - 76
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Scott, RD. The Direct Medical Costs of Healthcare-Associated Infections in US Hospitals and the Benefits of Prevention. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009.Google Scholar
2. O’Grady, NP, Alexander, M, Burns, LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control 2011;39(4 Suppl 1):S1–S34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Chopra, V KS, Olmsted, RN, Safdar, N, Saint, S. Chapter 10: Prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections: brief update review. In UoCSF-SE-BP, eds Making Health Care Safer II: an Updated Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2013:88–110.Google Scholar
4. Stevens, V, Geiger, K, Concannon, C, Nelson, RE, Brown, J, Dumyati, G. Inpatient costs, mortality and 30-day re-admission in patients with central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20:O318–O324.Google Scholar
5. Zimlichman, E, Henderson, D, Tamir, O, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:2039–2046.Google Scholar
6. Action Plan to Prevent Healthcare-associated Infections. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.Google Scholar
7. National and State Healthcare-Associated Infections Progress Report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015.Google Scholar
8. Render, ML, Hasselbeck, R, Freyberg, RW, et al. Reduction of central line infections in Veterans Administration intensive care units: an observational cohort using a central infrastructure to support learning and improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:725–732.Google Scholar
9. Cherifi, S, Mascart, G, Dediste, A, et al. Variations in catheter-related bloodstream infections rates based on local practices. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2013;2:10.Google Scholar
10. Worth, LJ, Brett, J, Bull, AL, McBryde, ES, Russo, PL, Richards, MJ. Impact of revising the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System definition for catheter-related bloodstream infection in ICU: reproducibility of the National Healthcare Safety Network case definition in an Australian cohort of infection control professionals. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Corley, A, Cantara, M, Gardner, J, Trexler, P, Rock, C, Maragakis, LL. Central line-associated bloodstream infection rate elevation: attributable to National Healthcare Safety Network surveillance definition changes, ongoing opportunities for infection prevention, or both? Am J Infect Control 2017;45:1030–1032.Google Scholar
12. Austin, JM, McGlynn, EA, Pronovost, PJ. Fostering transparency in outcomes, quality, safety, and costs. JAMA 2016;316:1661–1662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Epstein, AM. Will pay for performance improve quality of care? The answer is in the details. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1852–1853.Google Scholar
14. Ivers, N, Jamtvedt, G, Flottorp, S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Systemat Rev 2012;6:CD000259.Google Scholar
15. Ivers, NM, Grimshaw, JM, Jamtvedt, G, et al. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29:1534–1541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Ryan, A, Blustein, J. Making the best of hospital pay for performance. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1557–1559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Govindan, S, Chopra, V, Iwashyna, TJ. Do clinicians understand quality metric data? An evaluation in a Twitter-derived sample. J Hosp Med 2017;12:18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Rajwan, YG, Barclay, PW, Lee, T, Sun, IF, Passaretti, C, Lehmann, H. Visualizing central line -associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) outcome data for decision making by health care consumers and practitioners-an evaluation study. Online J Pub Health Informat 2013;5:218.Google Scholar
19. Collins, D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003;12:229–238.Google Scholar
20. Boyatzis, RE. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. London: SAGE; 1998.Google Scholar
21. Silverman, D. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. 3rd ed. London: SAGE; 2006.Google Scholar
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: central line-associated blood stream infections—United States, 2001, 2008, and 2009. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:243–248.Google Scholar
23. Umscheid, CA, Mitchell, MD, Doshi, JA, Agarwal, R, Williams, K, Brennan, PJ. Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:101–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Pronovost, PJ, Goeschel, CA, Wachter, RM. The wisdom and justice of not paying for “preventable complications. JAMA 2008;299:2197–2199.Google Scholar
25. National Health Safety Network. NHSN Newsletter: Patient Safety. vol. 9, 2014. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
26. Fagerlin, A, Zikmund-Fisher, BJ, Ubel, PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1436–1443.Google Scholar
27. Hesse, BW, Beckjord, E, Rutten, LJ, Fagerlin, A, Cameron, LD. Cancer communication and informatics research across the cancer continuum. Am Psychol 2015;70:198–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Fagerlin, A, Wang, C, Ubel, PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making 2005;25:398–405.Google Scholar
29. Halvorsen, PA, Selmer, R, Kristiansen, IS. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:848–856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Hawley, ST, Zikmund-Fisher, B, Ubel, P, Jancovic, A, Lucas, T, Fagerlin, A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns 2008;73:448–455.Google Scholar
31. Drees, M, Pineles, L, Harris, AD, Morgan, DJ. Variation in definitions and isolation procedures for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria: a survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:362–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Masnick, M, Morgan, DJ, Wright, MO, et al. Survey of infection prevention informatics use and practitioner satisfaction in US hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:891–893.Google Scholar
33. Creswell, JW KA, Plano Clark, VL, Smith, KC. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. National Institutes of Health 2011:2094–2103.Google Scholar
34. Purbey, S MK, Bha, C. Performance measurement system for healthcare processes. Int J Productiv Perform Manage 2007;56:241–251.Google Scholar
35. Alvero, AM, Bucklin, BR, Austin, J. An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings (1985–1998). J Organ Behav Manage 2001;21:3–29.Google Scholar
36. Loeb, JM. The current state of performance measurement in health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16(Suppl 1):i5–i9.Google Scholar
37. Chassin, MR, Loeb, JM, Schmaltz, SP, Wachter, RM. Accountability measures—using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med 2010;363:683–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Govindan et al supplementary material

Govindan et al supplementary material 1

Download Govindan et al supplementary material(File)
File 42 KB
Supplementary material: File

Govindan et al supplementary material

Govindan et al supplementary material 2

Download Govindan et al supplementary material(File)
File 1.1 MB