Health Economics and Aging Research, MedStar Health Research Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
National Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC, USA.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Feb;30(2):157-166. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010742. Epub 2020 Oct 9.
Older adults with complex care needs face trade-offs in determining the right course of treatment. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services identified 'Care is personalized and aligned with patient's goals' as a key meaningful measures category, yet existing quality measures typically assess disease-specific care and may not effectively evaluate what is most important to older adults and family members. Measures based on individualised goals and goal-based outcomes have been proposed as an alternative but are not routinely assessed or implemented.
We tested two approaches to assessing goal-based outcomes that allow individuals to set goals based on their own priorities and measure progress-(1) goal attainment scaling and (2) existing, validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).
A prospective cohort study of feasibility in seven sites (33 clinicians) of the two approaches with 229 individuals. We calculated performance on a measure of achievement of individually identified goals.
Both approaches were successfully implemented in a non-randomly selected population, and a goal-based outcome could be calculated for 189 (82%) of participants. Most individuals met their goal-based outcome (73%) with no statistical difference between the goal attainment scaling approach (74%) and the patient-reported outcomes approach (70%). Goals were heterogeneous ranging from participating in activities, health management, independence and physical health. Clinicians chose to use goal attainment scaling (n=184, 80%) more often than PROMs (n=49, 20%) and rated the goal attainment scaling approach as useful for providing patient care.
Goal-based outcomes have the potential to both improve the way healthcare is provided and fill a critical gap in value-based payment.
有复杂护理需求的老年人在确定治疗方案时需要权衡利弊。医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心将“护理个性化并与患者的目标保持一致”确定为有意义的主要衡量标准类别,但现有的质量衡量标准通常评估特定疾病的护理,可能无法有效评估对老年人和家庭成员最重要的内容。基于个性化目标和基于目标的结果的衡量标准已被提议作为替代方法,但尚未常规评估或实施。
我们测试了两种评估基于目标的结果的方法,这些方法允许个人根据自己的优先事项设定目标,并衡量进展情况:(1)目标实现量表和(2)现有的、经过验证的患者报告结果测量(PROM)。
对 7 个地点(33 名临床医生)的 229 名参与者进行了两种方法的前瞻性队列研究。我们计算了个人确定目标的实现程度的衡量标准的表现。
两种方法都在非随机选择的人群中成功实施,并且可以为 189 名(82%)参与者计算基于目标的结果。大多数人达到了基于目标的结果(73%),在目标实现量表方法(74%)和患者报告结果方法(70%)之间没有统计学差异。目标具有多样性,包括参与活动、健康管理、独立和身体健康。临床医生选择使用目标实现量表(n=184,80%)的频率高于患者报告结果量表(n=49,20%),并认为目标实现量表方法对提供患者护理有用。
基于目标的结果有可能改善医疗保健的提供方式,并填补基于价值的支付中的关键空白。