Profiling Quality of Care

Is There a Role for Peer Review?

Published In: BMC Health Services Research, v. 4, No.9, May 19, 2004, p. 1-12

Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 2003

by Timothy P. Hofer, Steven M. Asch, Rodney A. Hayward, Lisa V. Rubenstein, Mary M. Hogan, John L. Adams, Eve A. Kerr

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.biomedcentral.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: The authors sought to develop a more reliable structured implicit chart review instrument for use in assessing the quality of care for chronic disease and to examine if ratings are more reliable for conditions in which the evidence base for practice is more developed. METHODS: The authors conducted a reliability study in a cohort with patient records including both outpatient and inpatient care as the objects of measurement. The authors developed a structured implicit review instrument to assess the quality of care over one year of treatment. 12 reviewers conducted a total of 496 reviews of 70 patient records selected from 26 VA clinical sites in two regions of the country. Each patient had between one and four conditions specified as having a highly developed evidence base (diabetes and hypertension) or a less developed evidence base (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or a collection of acute conditions). Multilevel analysis that accounts for the nested and cross-classified structure of the data was used to estimate the signal and noise components of the measurement of quality and the reliability of implicit review. RESULTS: For COPD and a collection of acute conditions the reliability of a single physician review was quite low (intra-class correlation = 0.16-0.26) but comparable to most previously published estimates for the use of this method in inpatient settings. However, for diabetes and hypertension the reliability is significantly higher at 0.46. The higher reliability is a result of the reviewers collectively being able to distinguish more differences in the quality of care between patients (p < 0.007) and not due to less random noise or individual reviewer bias in the measurement. For these conditions the level of true quality (i.e. the rating of quality of care that would result from the full population of physician reviewers reviewing a record) varied from poor to good across patients. CONCLUSIONS: For conditions with a well-developed quality of care evidence base, such as hypertension and diabetes, a single structured implicit review to assess the quality of care over a period of time is moderately reliable. This method could be a reasonable complement or alternative to explicit indicator approaches for assessing and comparing quality of care. Structured implicit review, like explicit quality measures, must be used more cautiously for illnesses for which the evidence base is less well developed, such as COPD and acute, short-course illnesses.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.