Kathleen L. Carluzzo

Accountable Care Organizations in the United States: Market and Demographic Factors Associated with Formation

BACKGROUND The Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model is rapidly being implemented by Medicare, private payers, and states, but little is known about the scope of ACO implementation. OBJECTIVE To determine the number of accountable care organizations in the United States, where they are located, and characteristics associated with ACO formation. STUDY DESIGN, METHODS, AND DATA Cross-sectional study of all ACOs in the United States as of August 2012. We identified ACOs from multiple sources; documented service locations (practices, clinics, hospitals); and linked service locations to local areas, defined as Dartmouth Atlas hospital service areas. We used multivariate analysis to assess what characteristics were associated with local ACO presence. We examined demographic characteristics (2010 American Community Survey) and health care system characteristics (2010 Medicare fee-for-service claims data). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS We identified 227 ACOs located in 27 percent of local areas. Fifty-five percent of the US population resides in these areas. HSA-level characteristics associated with ACO presence include higher performance on quality, higher Medicare per capita spending, fewer primary care physician groups, greater managed care penetration, lower poverty rates, and urban location. CONCLUSIONS Much of the US population resides in areas where ACOs have been established. ACO formation has taken place where it may be easier to meet quality and cost targets. Wider adoption of the ACO model may require tailoring to local context.

A method to create a standardized generic and condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure for patient care and healthcare improvement

PurposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which are generic or condition-specific, are used for a number of reasons, including clinical care, clinical trials, and in national-level efforts to monitor the quality of health care delivery. Creating PROMs that meet different purposes without overburdening patients, healthcare systems, providers, and data systems is paramount. The objective of this study was to test a generalizable method to incorporate condition-specific issues into generic PROM measures as a first step to producing PROMs that efficiently provide a standardized score. This paper outlines the method and preliminary findings focused on a PROM for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA-K).MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach and PROMIS® measures to test development of a combined generic and OA-K-specific PROM. Qualitative methods included patient focus groups and provider interviews to identify impacts of OA-K important to patients. We then conducted a thematic analysis and an item gap analysis: identified areas covered by existing generic PROMIS measures, identified “gap” areas not covered, compared gap areas to legacy instruments to verify relevance, and developed new items to address gaps. We then performed cognitive testing on new items and drafted an OA-K-specific instrument based on findings.ResultsWe identified 52 existing PROMIS items and developed 24 new items across 14 domains.ConclusionsWe developed a process for creating condition-specific instruments that bridge gaps in existing generic measures. If successful, the methodology will create instruments that efficiently gather the patient’s perspective while allowing health systems, researchers, and other interested parties to monitor and compare outcomes over time, conditions, and populations.

A Guide to Evaluation of Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Educational Programs: Lessons From the VA Chief Resident in Quality and Safety Program

With the recent proliferation of quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) education programs, guidance is needed on how to assess the effectiveness of these programs. Without a systematic approach, evaluation efforts may end up being disjointed, lead to excess participant burden, or yield unhelpful feedback because of poor fit with program priorities. This article presents a framework for developing a multilevel evaluation infrastructure using examples from the evaluation of the national Department of Veterans Affairs Chief Resident in Quality and Safety program, a 1-year, post-accreditation program to develop leadership and teaching skills in QI and PS. It illustrates how to apply the framework to establish evaluation priorities and methods, and shares sample results and how they are used to guide program improvements and track important outcomes at multiple levels. The framework is particularly relevant to other nonaccredited advanced QI/PS programs, yet offers useful considerations for evaluating any advanced medical education program.