Patient centered dental home: Building a framework for dental quality measurement and improvement

Author(s):  
Julie C. Reynolds ◽  
Peter C. Damiano ◽  
Jill Boylston Herndon
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Damiano ◽  
Julie C. Reynolds ◽  
Raymond A. Kuthy ◽  
Simi Mani ◽  
Susan C. McKernan

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 809-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle van Ryn ◽  
Sean M. Phelan ◽  
Neeraj K. Arora ◽  
David A. Haggstrom ◽  
George L. Jackson ◽  
...  

Purpose High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with new diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any Veterans Health Administration medical center nationwide in 2008 were ascertained through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry and sent questionnaires assessing a variety of aspects of patient-centered cancer care. We received questionnaires from 63% of eligible patients (N = 1,109). Descriptive analyses characterizing patient experiences with supportive care and binary logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of receipt of help wanted for each of the five symptom categories. Results There were significant gaps in patient-centered quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment. In multivariable modeling, the impact of clinical factors and patient race on odds of receiving wanted help varied by symptom. Coordination of care quality predicted receipt of wanted help for all symptoms, independent of patient demographic or clinical characteristics. Conclusion This study revealed substantial gaps in patient-centered quality of care, difficult to characterize through quality measurement relying on medical record review alone. It established the feasibility of collecting patient-reported quality measures. Improving quality measurement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems are high priorities for improving the processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-263
Author(s):  
Richard Gary Rozier ◽  
Benjamin Alexander White ◽  
Mian Wang ◽  
Beau D. Meyer ◽  
Jessica Y. Lee

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 263-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey C. Ward ◽  
Brian Bourbeau ◽  
Alexander L. Chin ◽  
Ray D. Page ◽  
Stephen S. Grubbs ◽  
...  

The past decade has seen considerable innovation in the delivery of care and payment in oncology. Key initiatives have included the development of oncology medical home care delivery standards, the Medicare Oncology Care Model, and multiple commercial payer initiatives. Looking forward, our next challenge is to reflect on lessons learned from these limited-scale demonstration projects and work toward models that are scalable and sustainable and reflect true collaboration between payers and providers sharing common objectives and methods to advance cancer care delivery. To this end, ASCO continues its work on care delivery standards, quality measurement, and alternative payment models. Over the past year, ASCO has received input from physicians, administrators, payers, and employers to update its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model. PCOP incorporates current work on provider-payer collaboration, the oncology medical home, and the value of clinical pathways and recognizes the need for common quality measurement, performance methodology, and payment structure across multiple sources of payment. The following represents a summary of the entire model. The model includes chapters on PCOP communities, clinical practice transformation, payment methodology, consolidated payments for oncology care, performance methodology, and implementation considerations. In future work, ASCO will continue its support of the PCOP model, including further development of care delivery standards, quality measures, and technology solutions (eg, CancerLinQ).


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Damiano ◽  
Julie C. Reynolds ◽  
Jill Boylston Herndon ◽  
Susan C. McKernan ◽  
Raymond A. Kuthy

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 446-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Damiano ◽  
Julie Reynolds ◽  
Jill Boylston Herndon ◽  
Susan McKernan ◽  
Raymond Kuthy

2020 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200688
Author(s):  
Claire E.H. Barber ◽  
Karen L. Then ◽  
Victoria Bohm ◽  
Marc Hall ◽  
Deborah A. Marshall ◽  
...  

Objective The aim of this study was to develop a patient-centered quality measurement framework to address a predefined vision statement and 7 strategic objectives for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care that was developed in prior qualitative work with arthritis stakeholders. Methods One hundred forty-seven RA-related performance measures (PMs) were identified from a systematic review. A candidate list of 26 PMs meeting predefined criteria and addressing the strategic objectives previously defined was then assessed during a 3-round (R) modified Delphi. Seventeen panelists with expertise in RA, quality measurement, and/or lived experience with RA rated each PM on a 1–9 scale based on the items of importance, feasibility, and priority for inclusion in the framework during R1 and R3, with a moderated discussion in R2. PMs with median scores ≥ 7 on all 3 items without disagreement were included in the final set, which then underwent public comment. Results Twenty-one measures were included in the final framework (15 PMs from the Delphi and 6 published system-level measures on access to care and treatment). The measures included 4 addressing early access to care and timely diagnosis, 12 evidence-based care for RA and related comorbidities, 1 addressing patient participation as an informed partner in care, and 4 on patient outcomes. Conclusion The proposed framework builds upon existing measures capturing early access to care and treatment in RA and adds important PMs to promote high-quality RA care and outcome measurement. In the next phase, the authors will test the framework in clinical practice in addition to addressing certain areas where no suitable PMs were identified.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document