Stroke Quality Metrics: Systematic Reviews of the Relationships to Patient-Centered Outcomes and Impact of Public Reporting

Background and Purpose— Stroke quality metrics play an increasingly important role in quality improvement and policies related to provider reimbursement, accreditation, and public reporting. We conducted 2 systematic reviews examining the relationships between compliance with stroke quality metrics and patient-centered outcomes, and public reporting of stroke metrics and quality improvement, quality of care, or outcomes. Methods— MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated the relationship between stroke quality metric compliance and patient-centered outcomes in acute hospital settings and public reporting of stroke quality metrics and quality improvement activities, quality of care, or patient outcomes. We specifically excluded studies that evaluated the effect of stroke units or hospital certification. Results— Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria for the review of stroke quality metric compliance and patient-centered outcomes; 9 found mostly positive associations, whereas 5 found no or very limited associations. Only 2 eligible studies were found that directly addressed the public reporting of stroke quality metrics. Conclusions— Some studies have found positive associations between stroke metric compliance and improved patient-centered outcomes. However, high-quality studies are lacking and several methodological difficulties make the interpretation of the reported associations challenging. Information on the impact of public reporting of stroke quality metric data is extremely limited. Legitimate questions remain as to whether public reporting of stroke metrics is accurate, effective, or has the potential for unintended consequences. The generation of high-quality data examining quality metrics and stroke outcomes as well as the impact of public reporting should be given priority.

[1]  Eric E. Smith,et al.  Are Quality Improvements in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Program Related to Better Care or Better Data Documentation? , 2011, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[2]  M. Shah,et al.  Association between stroke center hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke and mortality. , 2011, JAMA.

[3]  G. Andersen,et al.  Processes of Care and Medical Complications in Patients With Stroke , 2011, Stroke.

[4]  J. Jeng,et al.  Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Performance Indicators: Surveillance of Stroke Care in the Taiwan Stroke Registry: Get With The Guidelines-Stroke in Taiwan , 2010, Circulation.

[5]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Public reporting on hospital process improvements is linked to better patient outcomes. , 2010, Health affairs.

[6]  Eric E. Smith,et al.  Development of Stroke Performance Measures: Definitions, Methods, and Current Measures , 2010, Stroke.

[7]  J. Concato,et al.  Processes of care associated with acute stroke outcomes. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  Eric E. Smith,et al.  Characteristics, Performance Measures, and In-Hospital Outcomes of the First One Million Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack Admissions in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke , 2010, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[9]  Peter C Austin,et al.  Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial. , 2009, JAMA.

[10]  Li Liang,et al.  Get With the Guidelines–Stroke Is Associated With Sustained Improvement in Care for Patients Hospitalized With Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack , 2009, Circulation.

[11]  C. Benesch,et al.  Public Reporting of Quality Data for Stroke: Is It Measuring Quality? , 2008, Stroke.

[12]  Arnold Milstein,et al.  Reductions in Mortality Associated With Intensive Public Reporting of Hospital Outcomes , 2008, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[13]  E W Steyerberg,et al.  Variation between hospitals in patient outcome after stroke is only partly explained by differences in quality of care: results from the Netherlands Stroke Survey , 2008, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[14]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: The Evidence That Publishing Patient Care Performance Data Improves Quality of Care , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  L. Pedersen,et al.  Quality of Care and Mortality Among Patients With Stroke: A Nationwide Follow-up Study , 2008, Medical care.

[16]  R. Lilford,et al.  What is the empirical evidence that hospitals with higher-risk adjusted mortality rates provide poorer quality care? A systematic review of the literature , 2007, BMC Health Services Research.

[17]  Peter Langhorne,et al.  Stroke Units in Their Natural Habitat: Systematic Review of Observational Studies , 2007, Stroke.

[18]  Nancy M Albert,et al.  Association between performance measures and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with heart failure. , 2007, JAMA.

[19]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Relationship between Medicare's hospital compare performance measures and mortality rates. , 2006, JAMA.

[20]  G. Mensah,et al.  The Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry: initial results from four prototypes. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[21]  R. Steinbrook.  Public report cards--cardiac surgery and beyond. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Hospital quality for acute myocardial infarction: correlation among process measures and relationship with short-term mortality. , 2006, JAMA.

[23]  Elizabeth R DeLong,et al.  ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Association Between Hospital Process Performance and Outcomes Among Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes , 2022 .

[24]  D. Asch,et al.  The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. , 2005, JAMA.

[25]  S. Johnston,et al.  Do the Brain Attack Coalition’s criteria for stroke centers improve care for ischemic stroke? , 2005, Neurology.

[26]  J. Raftery,et al.  Comparing processes of stroke care in high- and low-mortality hospitals in the West Midlands, UK. , 2005, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[27]  G. Borsboom,et al.  The role of 'confounding by indication' in assessing the effect of quality of care on disease outcomes in general practice: results of a case-control study , 2005, BMC health services research.

[28]  Richard Lilford,et al.  Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma , 2004, The Lancet.

[29]  D. Goldfarb.  Patients at the centre: in our practice, and in our use of language , 2004, ACP journal club.

[30]  William Taylor,et al.  Relationship Between Process and Outcome in Stroke Care , 2003, Stroke.

[31]  Donald M. Berwick,et al.  Connections Between Quality Measurement and Improvement , 2003, Medical care.

[32]  Helen Hoenig,et al.  Structure, Process, and Outcomes in Stroke Rehabilitation , 2002, Medical care.

[33]  Helen Hoenig,et al.  Postacute stroke guideline compliance is associated with greater patient satisfaction. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[34]  P. Gompertz,et al.  Stroke care: how do we measure quality? , 2002, Postgraduate medical journal.

[35]  Silvana Quaglini,et al.  Guideline Compliance Improves Stroke Outcome: A Preliminary Study in 4 Districts in the Italian Region of Lombardia , 2002, Stroke.

[36]  P. Duncan,et al.  Adherence to Postacute Rehabilitation Guidelines Is Associated With Functional Recovery in Stroke , 2002, Stroke.

[37]  Alastair Baker,et al.  Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[38]  N. Weir,et al.  Towards a National System for Monitoring the Quality of Hospital-Based Stroke Services , 2001, Stroke.

[39]  Stephen MacMahon,et al.  Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, II: observational studies , 2001, The Lancet.

[40]  R H Brook,et al.  The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. , 2000, JAMA.

[41]  B. McNeil,et al.  Measuring and improving quality of care: a report from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology First Scientific Forum on Assessment of Healthcare Quality in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke. , 2000, Circulation.

[42]  B. McNeil,et al.  Measuring and improving quality of care : A report from the american heart Association/American college of cardiology first scientific forum on assessment of healthcare quality in cardiovascular disease and stroke , 2000, Stroke.

[43]  A. Furlan,et al.  Is in-hospital stroke mortality an accurate measure of quality of care? , 1998, Neurology.

[44]  J. Slattery,et al.  How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials. Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration. , 1997, Stroke.

[45]  A. Walker.  Confounding by indication. , 1996, Epidemiology.

[46]  A. Shroyer,et al.  Why it is Important to Demonstrate Linkages Between Outcomes of Care and Processes and Structures of Care , 1995, Medical care.

[47]  Jonathan Mant,et al.  Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction , 1995, BMJ.

[48]  D Draper,et al.  Measuring quality of care with explicit process criteria before and after implementation of the DRG-based prospective payment system. , 1990, JAMA.

[49]  W Wieners,et al.  On measuring quality. , 1988, Computers in healthcare.

[50]  Robert H. Brook,et al.  Hospital Inpatient Mortality , 1987 .

[51]  R. Brook,et al.  Hospital inpatient mortality. Is it a predictor of quality? , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[52]  Sumon YusufPhotoshare.  Care , 1890, The Hospital.