Skip Navigation



International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access published online on December 11, 2006
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzl064
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/1/29    most recent
mzl064v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aron, D.
Right arrow Articles by Pogach, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aron, D.
Right arrow Articles by Pogach, L. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved
Accepted November 8, 2006

Article

Summary measures of quality of diabetes care: comparison of continuous weighted performance measurement and dichotomous thresholds

David Aron 1, Mangala Rajan 2, and Leonard M. Pogach 2 *

1 VA HSR&D Center for Quality Improvement Research, Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
2 VA HSR&D Center for Healthcare Knowledge Management Research, VA New Jersey Healthcare System, East Orange, NJ, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Leonard M. Pogach, E-mail: leonard.pogach{at}med.va.gov


  Abstract

Background. The Institute of Medicine has suggested that related individual measures of quality be combined into summary measures. Averages of adherence on dichotomous measures for intermediate outcomes have shortcomings because control of individual risk factors differs in their health benefit. Therefore, a common metric is necessary to weight measures appropriately.

Objective. Compare health care system performance using continuous measures weighted based on quality adjusted life years saved (QALYsS) versus dichotomous threshold measures.

Research design. Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 2000-01 chart abstraction data of diabetic patients from 141 Veterans Health Administration medical centers. Outcome variables included correlation of individual level and facility level adherence to and rankings by continuous weighted individual and summary dichotomous measures for glycemic control (<8% A1c), blood pressure (<140/80 mm/Hg), and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) <130 mg/dl.

Results. The 141 facilities had a range of 163-740 (mean 263) subjects. The population (n = 37 142) was largely male (86.1%) and older (mean age 65.9 years, SD ±11.4 years), with mean overall A1c of 7.58%, systolic blood pressure of 137.2 mm/Hg, and LDL-C 104.8 mg/dl. There was excellent correlation between QALYsS and dichotomous outcomes for A1c (r = 0.86), blood pressure (r = 0.94), LDL-C (r = 0.95), and the summary measure (r = 0.92), but poor correlation among the risk factors (r = 0.19-0.36). There was considerable difference in rankings between the dichotomous and the continuous weighted measures; only 46% of facilities remained within the same or within 1 decile.

Conclusion. Continuous weighted measures for the major risk factors for diabetes-related complications have high correlation with dichotomous measures. We propose that a continuous QALYs-weighted summary measure could function as a global measure for the quality of diabetes care.

Keywords: quality measurement, quality of care, diabetes.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.