19
Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

Effectiveness of key indicatorsas instrument in detecting risks in healthcare

Ine Borghans

Page 2: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

2

Methods of Supervision

Thematic

Incidences

Quality syste

m

Risk Indicators

Suspicions criminal offenses

Page 3: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

3

Methods of Supervision

Thematic

Incidences

Quality syste

m

Risk Indicators

Suspicions criminal offenses

Page 4: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

4

Risk indicators

Used in ‘Risk-based' supervision

To render the risk of healthcare services measurable and transparent.

Developed in cooperation with the health care providers.

Page 5: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans
Page 6: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

6

Canary indicator of the coal mine

Page 7: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

7

Hospital adverse events often result in a longer length of stay (see references on next slide)

We developed a new indicator that uses the unexpectedly long length of stay (UL-LOS) as a potential risk factor for unsafe care.

Page 8: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

8

References1. Hoonhout LH, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Asscheman H, van der Wal G, van Tulder MW. Nature, occurrence and consequences

of medication-related adverse events during hospitalization: a retrospective chart review in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2010 10/01;33(10):853-64.

2. Hoonhout LH, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Zegers M, Waaijman R, Spreeuwenberg P, et al. Direct medical costs of adverse events in Dutch hospitals. BMC Health Serv.Res. 2009;9:27.

3. Sari AB, Sheldon TA, Cracknell A, Turnbull A, Dobson Y, Grant C, et al. Extent, nature and consequences of adverse events: results of a retrospective casenote review in a large NHS hospital. Qual.Saf Health Care 2007 12;16(6):434-9.

4. Ehsani JP, Jackson T, Duckett SJ. The incidence and cost of adverse events in Victorian hospitals 2003-04. Med.J.Aust. 2006 06/05;184(11):551-5.

5. Cho SH, Ketefian S, Barkauskas VH, Smith DG. The effects of nurse staffing on adverse events, morbidity, mortality, and medical costs. Nurs.Res. 2003 03;52(2):71-9.

6. Camp M, Chang DC, Zhang Y, Chrouser K, Colombani PM, Abdullah F. Risk factors and outcomes for foreign body left during a procedure: analysis of 413 incidents after 1 946 831 operations in children. Arch.Surg. 2010 11;145(11):1085-90.

7. Lotfipour S, Kaku SK, Vaca FE, Patel C, Anderson CL, Ahmed SS, et al. Factors associated with complications in older adults with isolated blunt chest trauma. West J.Emerg.Med. 2009 05;10(2):79-84.

8. Williams DJ, Olsen S, Crichton W, Witte K, Flin R, Ingram J, et al. Detection of adverse events in a Scottish hospital using a consensus-based methodology. Scott.Med.J. 2008 11;53(4):26-30.

9. Kaushal R, Bates DW, Franz C, Soukup JR, Rothschild JM. Costs of adverse events in intensive care units. Crit.Care Med. 2007 11;35(11):2479-83.

10. Rice-Townsend S, Hall M, Jenkins KJ, Roberson DW, Rangel SJ. Analysis of adverse events in pediatric surgery using criteria validated from the adult population: justifying the need for pediatric-focused outcome measures. J.Pediatr.Surg. 2010 06;45(6):1126-36.

11. Schioler T, Lipczak H, Pedersen BL, Mogensen TS, Bech KB, Stockmarr A, et al. Incidence of adverse events in hospitals. A retrospective study of medical records. Ugeskr.Laeger 2001 Sep 24;163(39):5370-8.

12. Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004 May 25;170(11):1678-86.

13. Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Ali W, Scott A, Schug S. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N.Z.Med.J. 2002 Dec 13;115(1167):U271.

Page 9: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

9

Indicator: Percentage of patients with an unexpectedly long length of stay (UL-LOS)

Methods:• Based on a prolonged length of stay of more than 50%• Standardisation for patients’ age, primary diagnosis and main

procedure• Three strata of hospitals:

31 general hospitals24 tertiary teaching hospitals8 university medical centres

Page 10: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

10

Why based on a prolonged length of stayof more than 50%?

• to include patients that stayed longer because of complications and adverse events

• and not patients that just stayed a little bit longer because of variations in the treatment, such as in logistics

Page 11: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

11

Example

- patient of 18 years old- appendicitis - appendectomy

Expected LOS 3,4 dagen3,4 + 1,7 = 5,1 days

Actual LOS 6 days or more: UL-LOS

Page 12: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

12

Results

Page 13: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

13

How does the Inspectorate use this indicator?

Most important problem: hospitals without UL-LOS percentage

Other hospitals: High percentage is an important signal

Inspectors ask to inspect detailed information per specialism

Patients with UL-LOS: record reviewing to learn what went wrong

Page 14: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

14

Page 15: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

15

PRO’s and CON’s of working with one key indicatorPro:• Les administrative burden for caregivers• Much easier for the inspector

Contra:High demands regarding to this specific indicator:• validity• reliability• comparability

Outcomes are not compensated by other indicators!

Page 16: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

16

Canary indicator of the coal mine

Page 17: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

17

Aviation: dashboard with some key indicators

Page 18: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

18

3 Indicators which may reveal risk of unsafe care

Sub-optimal quality of care

Unexpectedly long LOS*

Unplanned readmissions**

Higher than expected mortality***UN

DE

SIR

AB

LEOUTC

OMES

* Indicator described in this thesis**Indicator yet to be developed*** Indicator already available (HSMR)

Page 19: Effectiveness of key indicators as instrument in detecting risks in healthcare Ine Borghans

19

Thanks for your attention!