Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the applicability of process-of-care quality indicators (QIs) to vulnerable elders and to measure the effect of excluding indicators based on patients' preferences and for advanced dementia and poor prognosis.

DESIGN: The Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) project employed 203 QIs for care of 22 conditions (including six geriatric syndromes and 11 age-associated diseases) for community-based persons aged 65 and older at increased risk of functional decline or death. Relevant QIs were excluded for persons deciding against hospitalization or surgery. A 12-member clinical committee (CC) of geriatric experts rated whether each QI should be applied in scoring quality of care for persons with 47 advanced dementia (AdvDem) or poor prognosis (PoorProg). Using content analysis, CC ratings were formulated into a model of QI exclusion. Quality scores with and without excluded QIs were compared.

SETTING: Enrollees in two senior managed care plans, one in the northeast United States and the other in the southwest.

PARTICIPANTS: CC members evaluated applicability of QIs. QIs were applied to 372 vulnerable elders in two senior managed care plans.

MEASUREMENTS: Frequency and type of QIs excluded and the effect of excluding QIs on quality of care scores.

RESULTS: Of the 203 QIs, a patient's preference against hospitalization or surgery excluded 10 and eight QIs, respectively. The CC voted to exclude 81.5 QIs (40%) for patients with AdvDem and 70 QIs (34%) for patients with PoorProg. Content analysis of the CC votes revealed that QIs aimed at care coordination, safety or prevention of decline, or short-term clinical improvement or prevention with nonburdensome interventions were usually voted for inclusion (90% and 98% included for AdvDem and PoorProg, respectively), but QIs directed at long-term benefit or requiring interventions of moderate to heavy burden were usually excluded (16% and 19% included, respectively). About half of QIs aimed at age-associated diseases were voted for exclusion, whereas fewer than one-quarter of QIs for geriatric syndromes were excluded. Thirty-nine patients (10%) in our field trial held preferences or had clinical conditions that would have excluded 68 QIs. This accounted for 5% of all QIs triggered by these 39 patients and 0.6% of QIs overall. The quality score without exclusion was 0.57 and with exclusion was 0.58 (P =.89).

CONCLUSION: Caution is required in applying QIs to vulnerable elders. QIs for geriatric syndromes are more likely to be applicable to these individuals than are QIs for age-associated diseases. The objectives of care, intervention burdens, and interval before anticipated benefit affect QI applicability. At least for patients with AdvDem and PoorProg, identification of applicable or inapplicable QIs is feasible. In a community-based sample of vulnerable elders, few QIs are excluded.

Reprinted with permission from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 51, No. 7, July 2003, pp. 902-907. Copyright © 2003 Blackwell Science, Published on behalf of the American Geriatrics Society.

Originally published in: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 51, No. 7, July 2003, pp. 902-907.

This report is part of the RAND reprint series. The Reprint was a product of RAND from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND 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.