Purpose, Subject, and Consumer Comment on "Perceived Burden Due to Registrations for Quality Monitoring and Improvement in Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study".

Authors

Sylvia J Hysong
Patrick O'Mahen
Jochen Profit
Laura A Petersen

Publication Date

4-1-2022

Journal

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

DOI

10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6495

PMID

35174682

PMCID

PMC9309954

PubMedCentral® Posted Date

2-9-2022

PubMedCentral® Full Text Version

Post-print

Published Open-Access

yes

Keywords

Delivery of Health Care, Hospitals, Humans, Clinical Performance Measurement, Quality Monitoring Burden, Purpose-Subject-Consumer Framework, Performance Measure De-implementation, Clinicians

Abstract

Zegers and colleagues’ study codifies the perceived burden of quality monitoring and improvement stemming from the work by clinicians of registering (documenting) quality information in the medical record. We agree with Zegers and colleagues’ recommendation that a smaller, more effective and curated set of measures is needed to reduce burden, confusion, and expense. We further note that focusing on validity of clinical evidence behind individual measures is critical, but insufficient. We therefore extend Zegers and colleagues’ work through a pragmatic, tripartite heuristic. To assess the value of and curate a targeted set of performance measures, we propose concentrating on the relationships among three factors: (1) The purpose of the performance measure, (2) the subject being evaluated, and (3) the consumer using information for decision-making. Our proposed tripartite framework lays the groundwork for executing the evidence-based recommendations proposed by Zegers et al, and provides a path forward for more effective healthcare performance-measurement systems.

Comments

Associated Data