ArticleJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety2026
Longitudinal Reliability of Rheumatology Patient Safety Measures and Implications for CMS Case Minimums.
Article in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetrics with acceptable reliability are necessary to ensure that quality measures reward performance. Low metric reliability may result from a lack of differences between reporting entities or low numbers of eligible patients. The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) incentivizes high-performing practices to report, which may lower practice-to-practice variation and lower reliability. This study evaluated the impact of voluntary participation in MIPS and measure denominator counts on practice-specific reliability estimates.
methodsData came from the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry, which passively collects electronic health record (EHR) data. Practice-specific metric reliability was calculated on two safety measures-QPP176 (tuberculosis screening) and ACR10 (hepatitis B screening)-in two cohorts: the full sample of practices with data in RISE and the subset of practices that reported performance data on these measures to MIPS. The authors report longitudinal summary statistics on metric reliability, performance, and the number of eligible patients. The study team also examined estimates longitudinally stratified by patients counts.
resultsBoth the RISE and MIPS samples had acceptable median reliability (> 0.85) but a wide range (0.04-1.0) despite differences in performance. Analyses showed that for both measures for all years, the practice-specific metric reliability remains ≥ 0.80 when the number of eligible patients was at least 20 and ≥ 0.70 when the number of eligible patients was at least 10.
conclusionSelf-selection into the MIPS program did not reduce the reliability of the examined patient safety measures. In addition, we found acceptable metric reliability at denominator counts lower than currently required by CMS suggesting case minimums for certain measures could be lowered to further encourage quality improvement in a wider subset of practices.
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.