ArticleMedical care2015
Calculations of Financial Incentives for Providers in a Pay-for-Performance Program: Manual Review Versus Data From Structured Fields in Electronic Health Records.
Article in Medical care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pay-for-Performance and Veteran Care in the VHA and the Community: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of a Pay-for-Performance Program on Care for Black Patients with Hypertension: Important Answers in the Era of the Affordable Care Act.Health services research · 2017Trial
- Comparison of electronic versus manual abstraction for 2 standardized perinatal care measures.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Comparison of Electronic Health Record-Based and Claims-Based Diabetes Care Quality Measures: Causes of Discrepancies.Health services research · 2018Article
- The Reliability of Electronic Health Record Data Used for Obstetrical Research.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Article
- "Salt in the Wound": Safety Net Clinician Perspectives on Performance Feedback Derived From EHR Data.The Journal of ambulatory care managementArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHospital report cards and financial incentives linked to performance require clinical data that are reliable, appropriate, timely, and cost-effective to process. Pay-for-performance plans are transitioning to automated electronic health record (EHR) data as an efficient method to generate data needed for these programs.
objectiveTo determine how well data from automated processing of structured fields in the electronic health record (AP-EHR) reflect data from manual chart review and the impact of these data on performance rewards. RESEARCH
designCross-sectional analysis of performance measures used in a cluster randomized trial assessing the impact of financial incentives on guideline-recommended care for hypertension. SUBJECTS: A total of 2840 patients with hypertension assigned to participating physicians at 12 Veterans Affairs hospital-based outpatient clinics. Fifty-two physicians and 33 primary care personnel received incentive payments. MEASURES: Overall, positive and negative agreement indices and Cohen's kappa were calculated for assessments of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medication use, blood pressure (BP) control, and appropriate response to uncontrolled BP. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess how similar participants' calculated earnings were between the data sources.
resultsBy manual chart review data, 72.3% of patients were considered to have received guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications compared with 65.0% by AP-EHR review (κ=0.51). Manual review indicated 69.5% of patients had controlled BP compared with 66.8% by AP-EHR review (κ=0.87). Compared with 52.2% of patients per the manual review, 39.8% received an appropriate response by AP-EHR review (κ=0.28). Participants' incentive payments calculated using the 2 methods were highly correlated (r≥0.98). Using the AP-EHR data to calculate earnings, participants' payment changes ranged from a decrease of $91.00 (-30.3%) to an increase of $18.20 (+7.4%) for medication use (interquartile range, -14.4% to 0%) and a decrease of $100.10 (-31.4%) to an increase of $36.40 (+15.4%) for BP control or appropriate response to uncontrolled BP (interquartile range, -11.9% to -6.1%).
conclusionsPay-for-performance plans that use only EHR data should carefully consider the measures and the structure of the EHR before data collection and financial incentive disbursement. For this study, we feel that a 10% difference in the total amount of incentive earnings disbursed based on AP-EHR data compared with manual review is acceptable given the time and resources required to abstract data from medical records.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.