Quality improvement decision makers are left to develop an understanding of quality within their healthcare system from a deluge of narrowly focused measures that reflect existing fragmentation in care and lack a clear method for triggering improvement. A one-to-one metric-to-improvement strategy is intractable and leads to unintended consequences. Although composite measures have been used and their limitations noted in the literature, what remains unknown is 'Can integrating multiple quality measures provide a systemic understanding of care quality across a healthcare system?'
We devised a four-part data-driven analytic strategy to determine if consistent insights exist about the differential utilisation of end-of-life care using up to eight publicly available end-of-life cancer care quality measures across National Cancer Institute and National Comprehensive Cancer Network-designated cancer hospitals/centres. We performed 92 experiments that included 28 correlation analyses, 4 principal component analyses, 6 parallel coordinate analyses with agglomerative hierarchical clustering across hospitals and 54 parallel coordinate analyses with agglomerative hierarchical clustering within each hospital.
Across 54 centres, integrating quality measures provided no consistent insights across different integration analyses. In other words, we could not integrate quality measures to describe how the underlying quality constructs of interest-intensive care unit (ICU) visits, emergency department (ED) visits, palliative care use, lack of hospice, recent hospice, use of life-sustaining therapy, chemotherapy and advance care planning-are used relative to each other across patients. Quality measure calculations lack interconnection information to construct a story that provides insights about where, when or what care is provided to which patients. And yet, we posit and discuss why administrative claims data-used to calculate quality measures-do contain such interconnection information.
While integrating quality measures does not provide systemic information, new systemic mathematical constructs designed to convey interconnection information can be developed from the same administrative claims data to support quality improvement decision making.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#17,468,270
of 26,617,918 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#369
of 517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,550
of 384,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#19
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,617,918 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 384,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
