RESUMEN

Health information management is a vital and constructive component of the health system, refers to the process of producing and collecting, organising and storing, analysing, disseminating and using information. The aim of this study was to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the information management system in epidemic infectious diseases in Iran, specifically focusing on the registration, reporting, quality, confidentiality, and security of infectious disease data. This assessment was conducted from the perspective of policymakers and experts responsible for data registration and reporting. After examining the processes of registering and reporting infectious disease data and interviewing experts, a researcher-designed questionnaire was prepared to evaluate the infectious disease information management system. To assess the content validity of the Content Validity Index and Content Validity Ratio Index, a questionnaire was utilized. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed using Cronbach's alpha. By employing purposeful sampling and adhering to the inclusion criteria, 150 participants were included in the study. Questionnaires were distributed via email, WhatsApp, or Telegram to employees at various levels of Iran's health and treatment systems who were responsible for registering and reporting infectious disease data. The study encompassed 100 participants who successfully concluded the research. The results highlight that the key strength of healthcare data registration lies in its ability to "depict the epidemic curve during outbreaks of infectious diseases." Conversely, a notable weakness was the "insufficient collaboration from non-academic sectors (e.g., clinics, private laboratories) in registering and reporting infectious diseases. The present study's findings suggest that the issue lies not in the framework itself, but rather in the execution and functionality of the strategies. We can cultivate a repository of reliable and beneficial data by incorporating initiatives like training programs, enforcing regulations with consequences for inadequate data documentation, offering both material and motivational rewards, and streamlining all data collection and reporting systems.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Public reporting is supposed to be helpful in differentiating between well and poorly performing nursing homes; however, hospital patients often have difficulties to deal with quality information. Discharge planners (DP) can support them in comparing quality and, by influencing patients' decision, lead to better provision of care in nursing homes. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the choice behavior of DP, their use of quality information and the potential to impact the decision-making of patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 70 DP from German hospitals with a geriatric department participated in an online survey. They were asked about information preferences and tools used for nursing home searches. In addition, they assessed quality information items from the new German quality reporting on a Likert scale. To test their comprehension participants were given a case scenario of a typical patient, were shown nursing homes displayed based on a medical comparison portal navigator (AOK-Pflegenavigator) and were asked to select nursing homes in a 3-round experiment. RESULTS: When looking for a nursing home, DP primarily rely on internal nursing home directories (n = 62; 92.5%). The 3 preferred criteria for decision are: distance to the family (n = 55; 28.80%), bed availability (n = 51; 26.7%) and wishes of patients/relatives (n = 41; 21.47%). The consent score for public reporting was 46.28% and the comprehension ratio was 82.24%. DISCUSSION: The DP do not advise hospital patients on the performance of nursing homes and rely on the decision-making of patients. This results in a lack of impact on patients' decisions and consequently in a loss of potential for public reporting to lead to better care in nursing homes.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Public reporting of quality of care indicators in healthcare is intended to inform consumer decision-making; however, people may be unaware that such information exists, or it may not capture their priorities. The aim of this study was to understand the views of people with kidney disease about public reporting of dialysis and transplant center outcomes. Methods: This qualitative study involved 27 patients with lived experience of kidney disease in Australia who participated in 11 online focus groups between August and December 2022. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results: Patients from all Australian states and territories participated, with 22 (81%) having a functioning kidney transplant and 22 (81%) having current or previous experience of dialysis. Five themes were identified as follows: (i) surrendering to the health system, (ii) the complexity of quality, (iii) benefits for patient care and experience, (iv) concerned about risks and unintended consequences, and (v) optimizing the impact of data. Conclusion: Patients desire choice among kidney services but perceive this as rarely possible in the Australian context. Health professionals are trusted to make decisions about appropriate centers. Public reporting of center outcomes may induce fear and a loss of balanced perspective; however, it was supported by all participants and represents an opportunity for self-advocacy and informed decision-making. Strategies to mitigate potential risks include availability of trusted clinicians and community members to aid in data interpretation, providing context about centers and patients, and framing statistics to promote positivity and hope.

RESUMEN

This paper presents an overview of the development of an integrated patient-centred cardiac care registry spanning the initial 5 years (September 2017 to December 2022). The Netherlands Heart Registration facilitates registration committees in which mandated cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons structurally evaluate quality of care using real-world data. With consistent attendance rates exceeding 60%, a valuable network is supported. Over time, the completeness level of the registry has increased. Presently, four out of six quality registries show over 95% completeness in variables that are part of the quality policies of cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery societies. Notably, 93% of the centres voluntarily report outcomes related to open heart surgery and (trans)catheter interventions publicly. Moreover, outcomes after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker procedures are transparently reported by 26 centres. Multiple innovation projects have been initiated by the committees, signalling a shift from publishing outcomes transparently to collaborative efforts in sharing healthcare processes and investigating improvement initiatives. The next steps will focus on the entire pathway of cardiac care for a specific medical condition instead of focusing solely on the outcomes of the procedures. This redirection of focus to a comprehensive assessment of the patient pathway in cardiac care ultimately aims to optimise outcomes for all patients.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Transplant center report cards are publicly available and used by regulators, insurance payers, and importantly patients and families. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the variability in reported public performance ratings of pediatric and adult heart transplant centers. METHODS: Program-specific reports from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2017-2021 were used to evaluate stability, volatility, and reliability of 3 publicly reported ratings: waitlist survival (WS), getting to a faster transplant (FT), and post-transplantation graft failure (GF). RESULTS: There were 112 adult and 55 pediatric centers. Over the study period, nearly all centers (98%) had at least 1 change in rating in at least 1 of the tiers. The average time to the first rating change of any magnitude was 12-18 months for all tiers and centers. For adult centers, the most volatile rating was WS (SD: 0.77), followed by GF (SD: 0.76) and then FT (SD: 0.57). For pediatric centers, the most volatile rating was WS (SD: 0.79), followed by both GF (SD: 0.66) and FT (SD: 0.68), which were equally volatile. All tiers except adult FT had an estimated Fleiss's kappa <0.20, indicating poor agreement/consistency across the study period. In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient for all tiers was <0.50, indicating poor reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The current 5-tier reporting of transplant center performance is highly volatile and has poor reliability and consistency. Given the unintended and significant negative consequences these reports can have, critical revision of these ratings is warranted.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the intention to use hospital report cards (HRCs) for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as well as to explore the relevance of publicly available hospital performance information from the perspective of referring physicians. METHODS: We identified the most relevant information for hospital referral purposes based on a literature review and qualitative research. Primary survey data were collected (May-June 2021) on a sample of 591 referring orthopedists in Germany and analyzed using structural equation modeling. Participating orthopedists were recruited using a sequential mixed-mode strategy and randomly allocated to work with HRCs in the presence (intervention) or absence (control) of PROs. RESULTS: Overall, 420 orthopedists (mean age 53.48, SD 8.04) were included in the analysis. The presence of PROs on HRCs was not associated with an increased intention to use HRCs (p = 0.316). Performance expectancy was shown to be the most important determinant for using HRCs (path coefficient: 0.387, p < .001). However, referring physicians have doubts as to whether HRCs can help them. We identified "complication rate" and "the number of cases treated" as most important for the hospital referral decision making; PROs were rated slightly less important. CONCLUSIONS: This study underpins the purpose of HRCs, namely to support referring physicians in searching for a hospital. Nevertheless, only a minority would support the use of HRCs for the next hospital search in its current form. We showed that presenting relevant information on HRCs did not increase their use intention.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

For two decades, the U.S. government has publicly reported performance measures for most nursing homes, spurring some improvements in quality. Public reporting is new, however, to Department of Veterans Affairs nursing homes (Community Living Centers [CLCs]). As part of a large, public integrated healthcare system, CLCs operate with unique financial and market incentives. Thus, their responses to public reporting may differ from private sector nursing homes. In three CLCs with varied public ratings, we used an exploratory, qualitative case study approach involving semi-structured interviews to compare how CLC leaders (n = 12) perceived public reporting and its influence on quality improvement. Across CLCs, respondents said public reporting was helpful for transparency and to provide an "outside perspective" on CLC performance. Respondents described employing similar strategies to improve their public ratings: using data, engaging staff, and clearly defining staff roles vis-à-vis quality improvement, although more effort was required to implement change in lower performing CLCs. Our findings augment those from prior studies and offer new insights into the potential for public reporting to spur quality improvement in public nursing homes and those that are part of integrated healthcare systems.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The calculation of aggregated composite measures is a widely used strategy to reduce the amount of data on hospital report cards. Therefore, this study aims to elicit and compare preferences of both patients as well as referring physicians regarding publicly available hospital quality information METHODS: Based on systematic literature reviews as well as qualitative analysis, two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were applied to elicit patients' and referring physicians' preferences. The DCEs were conducted using a fractional factorial design. Statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models RESULTS: Apart from five identical attributes, one specific attribute was identified for each study group, respectively. Overall, 322 patients (mean age 68.99) and 187 referring physicians (mean age 53.60) were included. Our models displayed significant coefficients for all attributes (p < 0.001 each). Among patients, "Postoperative complication rate" (20.6%; level range of 1.164) was rated highest, followed by "Mobility at hospital discharge" (19.9%; level range of 1.127), and ''The number of cases treated" (18.5%; level range of 1.045). In contrast, referring physicians valued most the ''One-year revision surgery rate'' (30.4%; level range of 1.989), followed by "The number of cases treated" (21.0%; level range of 1.372), and "Postoperative complication rate" (17.2%; level range of 1.123) CONCLUSION: We determined considerable differences between both study groups when calculating the relative value of publicly available hospital quality information. This may have an impact when calculating aggregated composite measures based on consumer-based weighting.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Report cards can help consumers make an informed decision when searching for a long-term care facility. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the current state of web-based public reporting on long-term care facilities in the United States and the United Kingdom. METHODS: We conducted an internet search for report cards, which allowed for a nationwide search for long-term care facilities and provided freely accessible quality information. On the included report cards, we drew a sample of 1320 facility profiles by searching for long-term care facilities in 4 US and 2 UK cities. Based on those profiles, we analyzed the information provided by the included report cards descriptively. RESULTS: We found 40 report cards (26 in the United States and 14 in the United Kingdom). In total, 11 of them did not state the source of information. Additionally, 7 report cards had an advanced search field, 24 provided simplification tools, and only 3 had a comparison function. Structural quality information was always provided, followed by consumer feedback on 27 websites, process quality on 15 websites, prices on 12 websites, and outcome quality on 8 websites. Inspection results were always displayed as composite measures. CONCLUSIONS: Apparently, the identified report cards have deficits. To make them more helpful for users and to bring public reporting a bit closer to its goal of improving the quality of health care services, both countries are advised to concentrate on optimizing the existing report cards. Those should become more transparent and improve the reporting of prices and consumer feedback. Advanced search, simplification tools, and comparison functions should be integrated more widely.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Many international healthcare systems use quality competition to improve the quality of care. The corresponding instruments include quality measurement, public reporting, selective contracting, and pay for performance. The German healthcare system clearly shows that the possibilities are often limited in the status quo. Therefore, a need for practicable and evidence-based proposals are necessary to further the development of quality competition. METHODS: We conducted a national analysis and an international comparison (Switzerland, Netherlands and USA) as a pre-study to derive recommendations. On this basis, we designed a Delphi study with a consensus objective. Experts from relevant stakeholder groups in the German healthcare system were selected using purposive sampling for this study. RESULTS: The experts saw potential for quality improvement in the further development of quality competition. Quality measurement and public reporting were rated as empowering tools. There was mostly disagreement on whether quality competition should be further developed in a more regulatory or entrepreneur-based manner. However, there was a clear consensus that further development must be coordinated between the stakeholders, step-by-step and scientifically supported. In addition, the impulse should be supported by a legislatively introduced reform. CONCLUSIONS: Finally, these empirically based recommendations highlight the need for a coordinated coexistence of a top-down and a bottom-up approach. The developed blueprint proposal serves as an impetus for practical considerations of implementation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In this essay, we explore consequences of the systemic failure to track and to publicize the prevalence of patient-safety threats in American medicine. Tens of millions of Americans lose trust in medical care every year due to safety shortfalls. Because this loss of trust is long-lasting, the corrosive effects build up over time, yielding a collective maelstrom of mistrust among the American public. Yet no one seems to notice that patient safety is a root cause, because no one is counting. In addition to identifying the origins of this purblindness, we offer an alternative policy approach. This would call for government to transparently track safety threats through the systematic collection and reporting of patients' experiences. This alternative strategy offers real promise for stemming the erosion of trust that currently accompanies patient-safety shortfalls while staying consistent with Americans' preferences for a constrained government role with respect to medical care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare facilities have implemented contingency plans to minimize the consequences of this pathology however, the deployment and results of these contingency plans are scarcely shared. Objectives To describe the implementation of the contingency plan in the social and health care in the COVID-19 pandemic in the Public Hospital of Monforte (Lugo, Spain) and to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures included in this plan. Method Phenomenological sampling conducted between March 10 and May 15, 2020. Evaluation qualitative assessment by an external quality improvement team of the Galician Health Service (SERGAS), based on the Practicum Direct rapid structured checklist in risk management, organizational management, and evaluation of decision making. As outcome indicators, we assessed the number of hospital admissions, number of PCRs performed, telephone attention to social and health social-healthcare patients, number of hospitalizations avoided and estimation of their direct cost. Results After assessing and managing the risks, an information security plan was developed and solutions to minimize complications in our patients derived from this pandemic. An emergency decision making team was created, as well as an employee communication mechanism for employees through standardized documents and documentation channels. Conclusions The adaptation of the Practicum Direct rapid model to the healthcare setting is a useful and easy-to-apply tool that allows us to identify weak points and areas for improvement in our Service and thus to strengthen patient care in all clinical areas, improving the quality of care (AU)

Introducción Durante la pandemia de la COVID-19 los centros sanitarios han puesto en marcha planes de contingencia para minimizar las consecuencias de esta enfermedad. Sin embargo, el despliegue y los resultados de estos planes de contingencia son escasamente compartidos. Objetivos Describir la implantación del plan de contingencia en la atención sociosanitaria en la pandemia de la COVID-19 en el Hospital Público de Monforte (Lugo, España) y evaluar la efectividad de las medidas incluidas en dicho plan. Método Muestreo fenomenológico realizado entre el 10 de marzo y el 15 de mayo de 2020. Evaluación cualitativa por un equipo externo de mejora de la calidad del Servicio Gallego de Salud, basada en la lista de verificación rápida estructurada Practicum Direct en gestión de riesgos, gestión organizativa y evaluación de la toma de decisiones. Como indicadores de resultado se valoraron el número de ingresos hospitalarios, el número de PCR realizadas, la atención telefónica a pacientes sociosanitarios, el número de hospitalizaciones evitadas y la estimación de su coste directo. Resultados Tras evaluar y gestionar los riesgos se elaboró un plan de seguridad de la información y soluciones para minimizar las complicaciones en nuestros pacientes derivadas de esta pandemia. Se creó un equipo de toma de decisiones de emergencia, así como un mecanismo de comunicación para los empleados a través de documentos y canales de documentación estandarizados. Conclusiones La adaptación del modelo Practicum Direct rapid al ámbito sanitario es una herramienta útil y de fácil aplicación que nos permite identificar puntos débiles y áreas de mejora en nuestro servicio, y así reforzar la atención al paciente en todas las áreas clínicas, mejorando la calidad asistencial (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Public reporting on health providers' performance (PRHPP) is increasingly used for empowering patients. This study aimed to test the effect of PRHPP using the theory of the consumer choice model. Methods: The study was conducted in 10 primary care institutions in Hubei province, China. Information related to the percentage of prescriptions requiring antibiotics, the percentage of prescriptions requiring injections, and average costs per prescription for each prescriber was calculated, ranked and displayed in a public place on a monthly basis. A questionnaire survey was undertaken on 302 patients 10 months after the initiation of the PRHPP, tapping into patient awareness, understanding, perceived value and use of the information in line with the theory of the consumer choice model. The fitness of data with the model was tested using structural equation modelling. The patients who were aware of the PRHPP were compared with those who were unaware of the PRHPP. The propensity score method (considering differences between the two groups of patients in age, gender, education, health and income) was used for estimating the effects of the PRHPP. Results: About 22% of respondents were aware of the PRHPP. Overall, the patients showed limited understanding, perceived value and use of the disclosed information. The data fit well into the consumer choice model. Awareness of the PRHPP was found to be associated with increased understanding of the antibiotic (p = 0.028) and injection prescribing indictors (p = 0.030). However, no significant differences in perceived value and use of the information (p > 0.097) were found between those who were aware and those who were unaware of the PRHPP. Conclusion: Although PRHPP may improve patient understanding of the prescribing performance indicators, its impacts on patient choices are limited due to low levels of perceived value and use of information from patients. Additional support is needed to enable patients to make informed choices using the PRHPP.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare facilities have implemented contingency plans to minimize the consequences of this pathology however, the deployment and results of these contingency plans are scarcely shared. OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation of the contingency plan in the social and health care in the COVID-19 pandemic in the Public Hospital of Monforte (Lugo, Spain) and to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures included in this plan. METHOD: Phenomenological sampling conducted between March 10 and May 15, 2020. Evaluation qualitative assessment by an external quality improvement team of the Galician Health Service (SERGAS), based on the Practicum Direct rapid structured checklist in risk management, organizational management, and evaluation of decision making. As outcome indicators, we assessed the number of hospital admissions, number of PCRs performed, telephone attention to social and health social-healthcare patients, number of hospitalizations avoided and estimation of their direct cost. RESULTS: After assessing and managing the risks, an information security plan was developed and solutions to minimize complications in our patients derived from this pandemic. An emergency decision making team was created, as well as an employee communication mechanism for employees through standardized documents and documentation channels. CONCLUSIONS: The adaptation of the Practicum Direct rapid model to the healthcare setting is a useful and easy-to-apply tool that allows us to identify weak points and areas for improvement in our Service and thus to strengthen patient care in all clinical areas, improving the quality of care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To understand the relative role of prices versus utilization in the variation in total spending per patient across medical groups. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of medical claims for commercially insured adults from a large national insurer in 2018. STUDY DESIGN: After assigning patients to a medical group based on primary care visits in 2018, we calculated total medical spending for each patient in that year. Total spending included care provided by clinicians within the medical group and care provided by other providers, including hospitals. It did not include drug spending. We estimated the case mix adjusted spending per patient for each medical group. Within each market, we categorized medical groups into quartiles based on the group's spending per patient. To decompose spending variation into price versus utilization, we compared spending differences between highest and lowest quartile medical groups under two scenarios: (1) using actual prices (2) using a standardized price (same price used for a given service across the nation). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In total, 3,921,736 patients were assigned to 7284 medical groups. Per-patient spending in the highest quartile of spending medical groups was $1813 higher than per-patient spending in the lowest spending quartile of medical groups (50% higher relative spending). This overall difference was primarily driven by differences in inpatient care, imaging, and specialty care. In the scenario where we used standardized prices, the difference in spending between medical groups in the top and bottom quartiles decreased to $1425, implying that 79% of the $1813 difference in spending between the top and bottom quartile groups is explained by utilization and the remaining 21% by prices. The likely explanation for the modest impact of prices is that patients cared for by a given medical group receive care across a wide range of providers. CONCLUSIONS: Prices explained a modest fraction of the differences in spending between medical groups.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of nursing home-reported data on urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are publicly reported on Nursing Home Care Compare, and pneumonia, which are not publicly reported. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We used secondary data for 100% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in the United States between 2011 and 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who were nursing home residents between 2011 and 2017 and admitted to a hospital with a primary diagnosis of UTI or pneumonia. After linking these hospital claims to resident-level nursing home-reported assessment data in the Minimum Data Set, we calculated the percentages of infections that were appropriately reported and assessed variation by resident- and nursing home-level characteristics. We developed a claims-based nursing home-level measure of hospitalized infections and estimated correlations between this and publicly reported ratings. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who were nursing home residents and hospitalized for UTI or pneumonia during the study period were included. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Reporting rates were low for both infections (UTI: short-stay residents 29.1% and long-stay residents 19.2%; pneumonia: short-stay residents 66.0% and long-stay residents 70.6%). UTI reporting rates increased when counting additional assessments, but it is unclear whether these reports are for the same versus a newly developed UTI. Black residents had slightly lower reporting rates, as did nursing homes with more Black residents. Correlations between our claims-based measure and publicly reported ratings were poor. CONCLUSIONS: UTI and pneumonia were substantially underreported in data used for national public reporting. Alternative approaches are needed to improve surveillance of nursing home quality.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research reports the outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) at United States transplantation centers (TC) annually through its Center-Specific Survival Analysis (CSA). The CSA compares the actual 1-year overall survival (OS) and predicted 1-year OS rate after alloHCT at each TC, which is then reported as 0 (OS as expected), -1 (OS worse than expected), or 1 (OS better than expected). We evaluated the impact of public reporting of TC performance on their alloHCT patient volumes. Ninety-one TCs that serve adult or combined adult and pediatric populations and had CSA scores reported for 2012-2018 were included. We analyzed prior-calendar-year TC volume, prior-calendar-year CSA score, whether the CSA score had changed in the prior year from two years earlier, calendar year, TC type (adult only vs. combined adult and pediatric), and years of alloHCT experience for their impact on patient volumes. A CSA score of -1, as compared with 0 or 1, was associated with an 8% to 9% reduction in the mean TC volume (P < 0.001) in the subsequent year, adjusting for the prior year center volume. Additionally, being a TC neighboring an index TC with a -1 CSA score, was associated with a 3.5% increase in mean TC volume (P = 0.04). Our data show that public reporting of CSA scores is associated with changes in alloHCT volumes at TCs. Additional investigation into the causes of this shift in patient volume and the impact on outcomes is ongoing.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Public health surveillance data do not always capture all cases, due in part to test availability and health care seeking behaviour. Our study aimed to estimate under-ascertainment multipliers for each step in the reporting chain for COVID-19 in Toronto, Canada. Design and methods: We applied stochastic modeling to estimate these proportions for the period from March 2020 (the beginning of the pandemic) through to May 23, 2020, and for three distinct windows with different laboratory testing criteria within this period. Results: For each laboratory-confirmed symptomatic case reported to Toronto Public Health during the entire period, the estimated number of COVID-19 infections in the community was 18 (5th and 95th percentile: 12, 29). The factor most associated with under-reporting was the proportion of those who sought care that received a test. Conclusions: Public health officials should use improved estimates to better understand the burden of COVID-19 and other similar infections.

RESUMEN

Within Wisconsin, our residents experience some of the worst health disparities in the nation. Public reporting on disparities in the quality of care is important to achieving accountability for reducing disparities over time and has been associated with improvements in care. Disparities reporting using statewide electronic health records (EHR) data would allow efficient and regular reporting, but there are significant challenges with missing data and data harmonization. We report our experience in creating a statewide, centralized EHR data repository to support health systems in reducing health disparities through public reporting. We partnered with the Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality (the "Collaborative"), which houses patient-level EHR data from 25 health systems including validated metrics of healthcare quality. We undertook a detailed assessment of potential disparity indicators (race and ethnicity, insurance status and type, and geographic disparity). Challenges for each indicator are described, with solutions encompassing internal (health system) harmonization, central (Collaborative) harmonization, and centralized data processing. Key lessons include engaging health systems in identifying disparity indicators, aligning with system priorities, measuring indicators already collected in the EHR to minimize burden, and facilitating workgroups with health systems to build relationships, improve data collection, and develop initiatives to address disparities in healthcare.