Why the study?
Do different hypertension quality measurement approaches yield concordant assessments of provider performance?
Do different hypertension quality measurement approaches yield concordant assessments of provider performance?
Currently available quality measurement approaches for hypertension care yield highly variable assessments of provider performance, suggesting caution in their use for pay-for-performance compensation.
Variable hypertension quality measures warrant caution for pay-for-performance; leaves open need for validated standardization.
CONTEXT: Pay-for-performance programs may be widely implemented, but gaps remain in our understanding of the implementation of performance measurement approaches. OBJECTIVES: To compare 3 approaches to hypertension quality measurement as applied to high-quality care delivered by a hypertension expert. METHODS: Care of 23 patients treated by a single hypertension expert was assessed by 3 measurement approaches: (1) outcome, (2) a multicomponent process, and (3) "outcome-linked" process. Exemplary case studies were identified to illustrate additional challenges to applying the approaches. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of patients (n = 10) had complete concordance between the outcome and outcome-linked process approaches, 22% of patients (n = 5) had complete concordance between the outcome and multicomponent process approaches, 52% of patients (n = 12) had complete concordance between outcome-linked process and multicomponent process approaches, and 22% of patients (n = 5) had uniform agreement among all 3 approaches. Case studies revealed numerous opportunities for misinterpretation or gaming by providers. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available measurement approaches resulted in a varied assessment of provider performance under optimal hypertension care conditions suggesting that caution is required before their use for provider compensation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watts et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: