The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 99
B Sample Criteria Consulted 99

OCR for page 99
TABLE B-1 Previously Published Criteria for Selected Groups of Measures 100 NQF, 2012: Measure evaluation criteria: Cri- IOM, 2010: Future IOM, 2003b: Priority are- teria for evaluation once HHS SAC, 2011: Opera- directions for the na- as for National Action measure meets criteria tion criteria for selection tional quality Criteria for identifying prior- for consideration of LHIs (HHS, 2008, Criteria for selecting ity areas for health care Category for Criteria (NQF, 2012b) 2013) measures (IOM, 2010) quality efforts (IOM, 2003) Criteria that apply to the condition(s) or outcome(s) to be measured Impact (Importance)  Impact: Priority (meas-  Central: important as a  Importance: high-  Impact: the extent of the ure addresses identified determinant of health impact based on po- burden—disability, mortali- priority or has high im- status tential population im- ty, and economic costs— pact on patients)  Instinctive: easily recog- pact, high cost, imposed by a condition, in- nized as intimate to variation in quality, cluding effects on patients, health status low performance lev- families, communities, and  Immutable: convey a els, or existing dis- societies. sense of the obligation to parities  Inclusiveness: the relevance act  Applicability to na- of an area to a broad range tional priorities: Does of individuals with regard it measure progress in to age, gender, socio- at least one of the na- economic status, and tional priority areas ethnicity/race (equity) ... for improving the and the breadth of change quality of health care effected through such strat- and eliminating dis- egies across a range of parities? health care settings and providers (reach).

OCR for page 99
Improvability  Impact: opportunity for  Actionable: convey a  Improvability: is  Improvability: the extent of improvement (i.e., per- sense of the possibility there evidence (not the gap between current formance gap) to act limited to RCTs) that practice and evidence-based  Impact: evidence (meas- improvement can be best practice and the likeli- ure focus is health out- made? hood that the gap can be come or is evidence-  Value: does the closed and condition im- based) measure have the po- proved through change in  Usability and use: extent tential to increase an area; and the opportunity to which potential audi- health care value by to achieve dramatic im- ences are using or could narrowing a defined provement in the six na- use performance results quality gap? tional quality aims for both accountability  If criteria are met, identified in the Quality and performance select measure for use Chasm report (safety, effec- improvement based on its ranking tiveness, patient- to improve popula- centeredness, timeliness, ef- tion health and equity ficiency, and equity).  Inclusiveness: the generali- zability of associated quali- ty improvement strategies to many types of conditions and illnesses across the spectrum of health care (representativeness); and the breadth of such strate- gies across a range of health care settings and providers (reach). 101

OCR for page 99
TABLE B-1 Continued 102 NQF, 2012: Measure evaluation criteria: Cri- IOM, 2010: Future IOM, 2003b: Priority areas teria for evaluation once HHS SAC, 2011: Opera- directions for the na- for National Action measure meets criteria tion criteria for selection tional quality Criteria for identifying priori- for consideration of LHIs (HHS, 2008, Criteria for selecting ty areas for health care quality Category for Criteria (NQF, 2012b) 2013) measures (IOM, 2010) efforts (IOM, 2003) Criteria that apply to the condition(s) or outcome(s) to be measured Scientific soundness  Validity  Sound measure avail-  Reliability: measure is able: Have scientifi- well defined and precise- cally sound measures ly specified and produc- been developed to as- es same results when sess this area? repeated  Comparison to related measures to ensure harmonization Geographic, temporal,  Divisible: into key sub-  Equity: does the  Inclusiveness: the relevance and population coverage populations measure document of an area to a broad range  Translatable: to the na- significant inequities of individuals with regard tional, state, community, in care by race, eth- to age, gender, socio- and individual nicity, language need, economic status, and levels or socioeconomic ethnicity/race (equity) …  Measurable: at a point in status? and the breadth of change time, over time  Geographic and effected through such strat- health systems egies across a range of equity: does the health care settings and measure document providers (reach).

OCR for page 99
geographic or health system variation in performance? Data availability  Feasibility: data are  Data availability: readily available or Does an appropriate could be captured with- national data source out undue burden and exist that would sup- can be implemented port assessment of for performance performance overall measurement as well as among dis- parity populations? 103

OCR for page 99