Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J M Eisenberg

Publications and source records attributed to J M Eisenberg.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Federal efforts to improve quality of care: the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC).

FORMATION OF THE QUIC: The Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC) was established in 1998 to enable the participating federal agencies to coordinate their activities to study, measure, and improve the quality of care delivered by federal health programs; provide people with information to help them in making more informed choices about their care; and develop the research base and infrastructure needed to improve the health care system, including knowledgeable and empowered workers, well-designed systems of care, and useful information systems. STUDY, MEASURE, AND IMPROVE CARE: The QuIC's initial efforts to improve the care delivered in federal health care programs have focused on diabetes, depression, and the effect of working conditions on quality of care. More recently, patient safety efforts are under way to establish a coordinating center that will enable those who are testing methods of reducing errors to share information across their projects and with experts in error reduction. DEVELOP A RESEARCH BASE AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The QuIC has coordinated efforts in credentialing, information on measures of quality, a taxonomy of quality improvement methods, and errors data collection. PROVIDE INFORMATION TO AMERICANS ABOUT HEALTH CARE QUALITY: The QuIC agencies are developing products that will enhance their ability to communicate with the American people about their health care choices: improved gateways for consumer information available from federal agencies, a glossary of commonly used terms, and guidance for producing report cards on quality of care. MOVING THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AGENDA FORWARD: Federal efforts to improve quality of care are moving forward in a more integrated fashion on a wide number of fronts.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗

Does a healthy health care workplace produce higher-quality care?

BACKGROUND: The multiagency Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC) coordinates activities and plans for quality measurement and improvement across all the U.S. federal agencies involved in health care. One of its working groups focuses on the health care workforce and ways to improve the quality of care that it provides. In October 1999 four government agencies, under the aegis of the QuIC, convened a conference to examine how health care workplace quality influences the quality of care. A healthy workplace is one in which workers will be able to deliver higher-quality care and in which worker health and patients' high-quality care are mutually supportive. In October 2000 a follow-up conference was held to focus on a specific aspect of health care quality-patient safety. WHAT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW: Although enough is known to justify some initiatives to improve the quality of the health care workplace, participants in both meetings agreed that the evidence to prove these associations is weak and that there has been too little research to evaluate the impact of interventions intended to improve quality through improvements in the health care workplace. New evidence-based information is needed to test the theory of the nature of the relationship between working conditions and care quality. CONCLUSION: The tradition of evidence-based decision making needs to be applied to health care management as it has in medicine and nursing, to show how staffing, environment, organization, and culture can each can affect the quality of care.

Advisory Committees↗

Transforming insurance coverage into quality health care: voltage drops from potential to delivered quality.

Although the US health care system is often touted as one of the best in the world, disparities exist in quality of care received by different populations, in different regions, and across different institutions and clinicians. Initiatives to provide access to health insurance have been a major policy tool to ensure that Americans receive high-quality health care. However, availability of insurance coverage does not automatically lead to high-quality care. This article explores points of vulnerability in the US health care system at which the potential to achieve high-quality care can be lost: (1) access to insurance coverage; (2) enrollment in available insurance plans; (3) access to covered services, clinicians, and health care institutions; (4) choice of plans, clinicians, and health care institutions; (5) access to a consistent source of primary care; (6) access to referral services; and (7) delivery of high-quality health care services. Ensuring high-quality health care requires that each of these "voltage drops" be recognized and addressed. JAMA. 2000;284:2100-2107.

Delivery of Health Care↗

Continuing education meets the learning organization: the challenge of a systems approach to patient safety.

Since the release of the report of the Institute of Medicine on medical errors and patient safety in November 1999, health policy makers and health care leaders in several nations have sought solutions that will improve the safety of health care. This attention to patient safety has high-lighted the importance of a learning approach and a systems approach to quality measurement and improvement. Balanced with the need for public disclosure of performance, confidential reporting with feedback is one of the prime ways that nations such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have approached this challenge. In the United States, the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force has convened federal agencies that are involved in health care quality improvement for a coordinated initiative. Based on an investment in a strong research foundation in health care quality measurement and improvement, there are eight key lessons for continuing education if it is to parlay the interest in patient safety into enhanced continuing education and quality improvement in learning health care systems. The themes for these lessons are (1) informatics for information, (2) guidelines as learning tools, (3) learning from opinion leaders, (4) learning from the patient, (5) decision support systems, (6) the team learning together, (7) learning organizations, and (8) just-in-time and point-of-care delivery.

Education, Continuing↗

The effect of race and sex on physicians' recommendations for cardiac catheterization.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies have reported differences in the use of cardiovascular procedures according to the race and sex of the patient. Whether the differences stem from differences in the recommendations of physicians remains uncertain. METHODS: We developed a computerized survey instrument to assess physicians' recommendations for managing chest pain. Actors portrayed patients with particular characteristics in scripted interviews about their symptoms. A total of 720 physicians at two national meetings of organizations of primary care physicians participated in the survey. Each physician viewed a recorded interview and was given other data about a hypothetical patient. He or she then made recommendations about that patient's care. We used multivariate logistic-regression analysis to assess the effects of the race and sex of the patients on treatment recommendations, while controlling for the physicians' assessment of the probability of coronary artery disease as well as for the age of the patient, the level of coronary risk, the type of chest pain, and the results of an exercise stress test. RESULTS: The physicians' mean (+/-SD) estimates of the probability of coronary artery disease were lower for women (probability, 64.1+/-19.3 percent, vs. 69.2+/-18.2 percent for men; P<0.001), younger patients (63.8+/-19.5 percent for patients who were 55 years old, vs. 69.5+/-17.9 percent for patients who were 70 years old; P<0.001), and patients with nonanginal pain (58.3+/-19.0 percent, vs. 64.4+/-18.3 percent for patients with possible angina and 77.1+/-14.0 percent for those with definite angina; P=0.001). Logistic-regression analysis indicated that women (odds ratio, 0.60; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 0.9; P=0.02) and blacks (odds ratio, 0.60; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 0.9; P=0.02) were less likely to be referred for cardiac catheterization than men and whites, respectively. Analysis of race-sex interactions showed that black women were significantly less likely to be referred for catheterization than white men (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.7; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the race and sex of a patient independently influence how physicians manage chest pain.

Age Factors↗

The timing of do-not-resuscitate orders and hospital costs.

The relation between the timing of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and the cost of medical care is not well understood. This prospective observational study compares hospital costs and length of stay of 265 terminally ill patients with admission DNR orders, delayed DNR orders (occurring after 24 hours), or no DNR orders (full code). Patients whose orders remained full code throughout a hospital stay had similar lengths of stay, total hospital costs, and daily costs as patients with admission DNR orders. Patients with delayed DNR orders, by contrast, had a greater mortality, longer length of stay, and higher total costs than full code or admission DNR patients, but similar daily costs. The causes of delay in DNR orders and the associated higher costs are a matter for future research.

Female↗