The use of claims-based data in inpatient public reporting and pay-for-performance programs

Is there opportunity for improvement?

Hazel R. Crews, Amy R. Chamness, Colin L. Terry, Paul Helft

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined whether self-reported, facility-based data validation practices for claims submissions of cases flagged as Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) match professional and regulatory standards. Methods: The National Association of Healthcare Quality members who work in an inpatient setting were invited to complete an anonymous survey to self-report their practices around facility-based data validation of PSI cases. Results: The authors found widespread variation in how PSI administrative data are internally validated; inconsistency in the education and training required of staff who participate in this process; and relatively poor compliance with physician query guidelines and documentation amendment standards. Conclusions: The self-described wide variation and non-adherence to professional and regulatory standards within the facility-based validation process for PSIs raise concerns about the use of these data to make meaningful judgments about quality and safety. The authors recommend a standardized approach to reporting and validation be implemented for use of PSIs in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)379-395
Number of pages17
JournalJournal for Healthcare Quality
Volume38
Issue number6
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Incentive Reimbursement
Patient Safety
Inpatients
Quality of Health Care
Documentation
Self Report
Guidelines
Physicians
Safety
Education

Keywords

  • AHRQ
  • Claims-based data reimbursement
  • Pay-for-performance programs
  • PSI
  • Public reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

The use of claims-based data in inpatient public reporting and pay-for-performance programs : Is there opportunity for improvement? / Crews, Hazel R.; Chamness, Amy R.; Terry, Colin L.; Helft, Paul.

In: Journal for Healthcare Quality, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2016, p. 379-395.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9bb4f7ca27884815b8a4d610f05b82fc,
title = "The use of claims-based data in inpatient public reporting and pay-for-performance programs: Is there opportunity for improvement?",
abstract = "Purpose: This study examined whether self-reported, facility-based data validation practices for claims submissions of cases flagged as Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) match professional and regulatory standards. Methods: The National Association of Healthcare Quality members who work in an inpatient setting were invited to complete an anonymous survey to self-report their practices around facility-based data validation of PSI cases. Results: The authors found widespread variation in how PSI administrative data are internally validated; inconsistency in the education and training required of staff who participate in this process; and relatively poor compliance with physician query guidelines and documentation amendment standards. Conclusions: The self-described wide variation and non-adherence to professional and regulatory standards within the facility-based validation process for PSIs raise concerns about the use of these data to make meaningful judgments about quality and safety. The authors recommend a standardized approach to reporting and validation be implemented for use of PSIs in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.",
keywords = "AHRQ, Claims-based data reimbursement, Pay-for-performance programs, PSI, Public reporting",
author = "Crews, {Hazel R.} and Chamness, {Amy R.} and Terry, {Colin L.} and Paul Helft",
year = "2016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "379--395",
journal = "Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality",
issn = "1062-2551",
publisher = "National Association for Healthcare Quality",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The use of claims-based data in inpatient public reporting and pay-for-performance programs

T2 - Is there opportunity for improvement?

AU - Crews, Hazel R.

AU - Chamness, Amy R.

AU - Terry, Colin L.

AU - Helft, Paul

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Purpose: This study examined whether self-reported, facility-based data validation practices for claims submissions of cases flagged as Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) match professional and regulatory standards. Methods: The National Association of Healthcare Quality members who work in an inpatient setting were invited to complete an anonymous survey to self-report their practices around facility-based data validation of PSI cases. Results: The authors found widespread variation in how PSI administrative data are internally validated; inconsistency in the education and training required of staff who participate in this process; and relatively poor compliance with physician query guidelines and documentation amendment standards. Conclusions: The self-described wide variation and non-adherence to professional and regulatory standards within the facility-based validation process for PSIs raise concerns about the use of these data to make meaningful judgments about quality and safety. The authors recommend a standardized approach to reporting and validation be implemented for use of PSIs in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

AB - Purpose: This study examined whether self-reported, facility-based data validation practices for claims submissions of cases flagged as Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) match professional and regulatory standards. Methods: The National Association of Healthcare Quality members who work in an inpatient setting were invited to complete an anonymous survey to self-report their practices around facility-based data validation of PSI cases. Results: The authors found widespread variation in how PSI administrative data are internally validated; inconsistency in the education and training required of staff who participate in this process; and relatively poor compliance with physician query guidelines and documentation amendment standards. Conclusions: The self-described wide variation and non-adherence to professional and regulatory standards within the facility-based validation process for PSIs raise concerns about the use of these data to make meaningful judgments about quality and safety. The authors recommend a standardized approach to reporting and validation be implemented for use of PSIs in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

KW - AHRQ

KW - Claims-based data reimbursement

KW - Pay-for-performance programs

KW - PSI

KW - Public reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010022729&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010022729&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 379

EP - 395

JO - Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality

JF - Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality

SN - 1062-2551

IS - 6

ER -