Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28353502›Full record

ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2017

Looking Under the Streetlight? A Framework for Differentiating Performance Measures by Level of Care in a Value-Based Payment Environment.

James M Naessens, Monica B Van Such, Robert E Nesse, James A Dilling, Stephen J Swensen, Kristine M Thompson, Janis M Orlowski, Paula J Santrach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reflections on Managing the Performance of Value-Based Healthcare: A Scoping Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

James M NaessensJ.M. Naessens is professor of health services research, Mayo Clinic, and scientific director, Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. M.B. Van Such is principal analyst, Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. R.E. Nesse is senior medical director for payment reform and professor of family medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. J.A. Dilling is chief operating officer for quality, Baylor, Scott & White Health, Dallas, Texas. S.J. Swensen is professor of radiology and past director of quality, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. K.M. Thompson is assistant professor of emergency medicine and performance improvement officer, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. J.M. Orlowski is chief health care officer, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. P.J. Santrach is associate professor of laboratory medicine and pathology and chief quality officer, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Monica B Van Such
Robert E Nesse
James A Dilling
Stephen J Swensen
Kristine M Thompson
Janis M Orlowski
Paula J Santrach

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of quality measures used to assess providers and hospitals are based on easily obtained data, focused on a few dimensions of quality, and developed mainly for primary/community care and population health. While this approach supports efforts focused on addressing the triple aim of health care, many current quality report cards and assessments do not reflect the breadth or complexity of many referral center practices.In this article, the authors highlight the differences between population health efforts and referral care and address issues related to value measurement and performance assessment. They discuss why measures may need to differ across the three levels of care (primary/community care, secondary care, complex care) and illustrate the need for further risk adjustment to eliminate referral bias.With continued movement toward value-based purchasing, performance measures and reimbursement schemes need to reflect the increased level of intensity required to provide complex care. The authors propose a framework to operationalize value measurement and payment for specialty care, and they make specific recommendations to improve performance measurement for complex patients. Implementing such a framework to differentiate performance measures by level of care involves coordinated efforts to change both policy and operational platforms. An essential component of this framework is a new model that defines the characteristics of patients who require complex care and standardizes metrics that incorporate those definitions.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth ExpendituresHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePrimary Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareUnited StatesValue-Based Purchasing

Identifiers

PMID28353502
PMCPMC5483980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.