|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. Appendix D
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 125 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 125
The Ist Annual Crossing the Quality Chasm Summit: A Focus on Communities
Appendix D
Community Selection Criteria
The IOM summit committee developed the following criteria for communities likely to be most successful in furthering the vision of the Quality Chasm at the local level:
Care coordination
Is care coordinated across patient conditions, services, and settings over time?
Have interdisciplinary teams been formed that communicate with and across diverse health care settings, institutions, and the public/personal health care systems?
Evidence-based practice
Have care processes been redesigned in accordance with best practices?
Have guidelines been implemented? Is there a mechanism in place to provide feedback on patient outcomes—effective/ineffective interventions?
Information and communications technology
Are information and communications technologies in place to improve access to clinical information and support clinical decision making?
Has a disease registry been compiled? Are prompts and reminders incorporated for needed services? What types of decision support are in place for clinicians?
OCR for page 126
The Ist Annual Crossing the Quality Chasm Summit: A Focus on Communities
Reimbursement
Are there any programs in place that reward or pay for quality?
Does financing support approaches to care that further the six aims set fourth in the Quality Chasm report—for example, group visits and non–visit-based care—and thus may better meet patient needs?
Has a business model been articulated that would make it possible for existing revenue streams to support the program in other settings and/or could serve as a model for reforming payment streams?
Measurement
Has the community incorporated performance and outcome measures for improvement and accountability?
Has measurement of some elements been demonstrated consistent with the six aims of the Quality Chasm.
Consumer engagement
Have all the necessary stakeholders been identified?
Have multistakeholder coalitions been formed, and are they functioning?
Will stakeholders in the community think the changes made will significantly help them (perceived benefit of the change)?
Leadership
Is there strong senior leadership that supports this initiative and considers it a priority?
The following additional screening criteria were applied:
Willingness/ability to provide evidence for the efficacy of efforts to address key barriers
Ability to demonstrate an evaluation component—commitment to measurement and accountability
Stated willingness/commitment to take lessons back from the summit
Identification of at least two primary stakeholders who would be represented at the summit and are actively engaged in the program
Inclusion of an assessment/communication strategy in the work plan
Are the changes relatively simple?
Can they be successfully piloted?
How can others watch and learn?
Geographic diversity among represented communities
Approximately 90 communities from across the country were identified as possible summit participants by committee members and a diverse set of organizations. From this initial pool, 45 communities were further screened, from which 15 were selected for the summit.
The IOM committee’s criteria specified that efforts must be focused on at least one of the five targeted priority areas and that stakeholders involved must include either a payer (e.g., health plan) or purchaser (public or private)—given their influence in shaping health care markets—and at least two of the following: hospital or health system, outpatient provider, consumer-based organization, and government. Coalitions that involved both the private and
OCR for page 127
The Ist Annual Crossing the Quality Chasm Summit: A Focus on Communities
public sectors were viewed favorably, given their ability to influence care across the community.
The committee further sought to invite communities to the summit that took an evidence-based approach to their quality improvement work and focused on system interventions (e.g., development of information and communications technology or reimbursement innovations). Communities were sought that evaluated their progress through measurement, were willing to be frank about their experiences, had the support of top leaders in their local markets, and exhibited signs of viability for the longer term. In addition, the committee desired a mix of communities in terms of clinical conditions addressed, geography, and the lead stakeholder driving the initiative.
OCR for page 128
The Ist Annual Crossing the Quality Chasm Summit: A Focus on Communities
This page intentionally left blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
six aims