RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Physicians' use of self-assessment to guide quality improvement or board certification activities often does not correlate with more objective measures, and they may spend valuable time on activities that support their strengths instead of addressing gaps. Our objective was to study whether viewing quality measures, with peer comparisons, would affect the selection of certification activities. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial-the Trial of Data Exchange for Maintenance of certification and Raising Quality (TRADEMaRQ)-with 4 partner organizations during 2015-2017. Physicians were presented their quality data within their online certification portfolios before (intervention) vs after (control) they chose board certification activities. The primary outcome was whether the selected activity addressed a quality gap (a quality area in which the physician scored below the mean for the study population). RESULTS: Of 2,570 invited physicians, 254 physicians completed the study: 130 in the intervention group and 124 in the control group. Nearly one-fifth of participating physicians did not complete any certification activities during the study. A sizable minority of those in the intervention group, 18.4%, never reviewed their quality dashboard. Overall, just 27.2% of completed certification activities addressed a quality gap, and there was no significant difference in this outcome in the intervention group vs the control group in either bivariate or adjusted analyses (odds ratio = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.90-1.82). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians did not use quality performance data in choosing certification activities. Certification boards are being pressed to make their programs relevant to practice, less burdensome, and supportive of quality improvement in alignment with value-based payment models. Using practice data to drive certification choices would meet these goals.
Asunto(s)
Certificación , Médicos , Competencia Clínica , Humanos , Grupo Paritario , Mejoramiento de la CalidadRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The Trial of Aggregate Data Exchange for Maintenance of Certification and Raising Quality was a randomized controlled trial which first had to test whether quality reporting could be a by-product of clinical care. We report on the initial descriptive study of the capacity for and quality of exchange of whole-panel, standardized quality measures from health systems. METHODS: Family physicians were recruited from 4 health systems with mature quality measurement programs and agreed to submit standardized, physician-level quality measures for consenting physicians. Identified measure or transfer errors were captured and evaluated for root-cause problems. RESULTS: The health systems varied considerably by patient demographics and payer mix. From the 4 systems, 256 family physicians elected to participate. Of 19 measures negotiated for use, 5 were used by all systems. There were more than 15 types of identified errors including breaks in data delivery, changes in measures, and nonsensical measure results. Only 1 system had no identified errors. CONCLUSIONS: The secure transfer of standardized, physician-level quality measures from 4 health systems with mature measure processes proved difficult. There were many errors that required human intervention and manual repair, precluding full automation. This study reconfirms an important problem, namely, that despite widespread health information technology adoption and federal meaningful use policies, we remain far from goals to make clinical quality reporting a reliable by-product of care.