TY - JOUR
T1 - Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality
T2 - Development of Quality Indicators for Acute Pancreatitis Management
AU - Vivian, Elaina
AU - Cler, Leslie
AU - Conwell, Darwin
AU - Coté, Gregory A.
AU - Dickerman, Richard
AU - Freeman, Martin
AU - Gardner, Timothy B.
AU - Hawes, Robert H.
AU - Kedia, Prashant
AU - Krishnamoorthi, Rajesh
AU - Oduor, Hellen
AU - Pandol, Stephen J.
AU - Papachristou, Georgios I.
AU - Ross, Andrew
AU - Sethi, Amrita
AU - Varadarajulu, Shyam
AU - Vege, Santhi Swaroop
AU - Wassef, Wahid
AU - Wilcox, C. Mel
AU - Whitcomb, David C.
AU - Wu, Bechien U.
AU - Yadav, Dhiraj
AU - Ellison, Ashton
AU - Habash, Samar
AU - Rastegari, Sheila
AU - Reddy, Rathan
AU - Yen, Timothy
AU - Brooks, Mary Rachel
AU - Tarnasky, Paul
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 by The American College of Gastroenterology.
PY - 2019/8/1
Y1 - 2019/8/1
N2 - INTRODUCTION: Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets. RESULTS: Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary. DISCUSSION: Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.
AB - INTRODUCTION: Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets. RESULTS: Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary. DISCUSSION: Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069709193&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069709193&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000264
DO - 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000264
M3 - Article
C2 - 31205135
AN - SCOPUS:85069709193
SN - 0002-9270
VL - 114
SP - 1322
EP - 1342
JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 8
ER -