Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 288
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 10-15

The quality reporting reality at a large Academic Medical Center: Reporting 1600 unique measures to 49 different sources


1 College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
2 Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
3 The Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
4 Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University; The Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
5 Department of Quality and Operations Improvement, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
6 Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University; The Department of Family Medicine, The Ohio State University; Deparment of Bioinformatics, The College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
7 Department of Quality and Operations Improvement, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; Department of Surgery, The College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Correspondence Address:
Jennifer L Hefner
2231 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43210
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2455-5568.209844

Rights and Permissions

Objective: This paper explores the complexity and costs associated with quality reporting at a large, tertiary Academic Medical Center (AMC). Methods: For each quality measure reported during fiscal year (FY) 2014, we noted the associated agency or registry and any repeated use of identical measures (measure overlap). In addition, the cost of quality reporting was examined – including personnel, registry expenses, and rewards and penalties. Results: The AMC reported over 1600 unique measures to 49 different sources; measure overlap was 9%. This effort cost $2,367,168, including 24.8 full-time equivalent employees hired specifically to conduct or support quality reporting. Pay-for-performance rewards and penalties totaled $29,197. As a result, $2,337,971 was the FY 2014 cost of quality reporting. Conclusions: There are financial and personnel burdens associated with quality reporting and considerable inefficiencies. As the number of metrics increase, measures need to be carefully assessed, standardized across agencies, and incorporated into electronic health records. The following core competencies are addressed in this article: Systems-based practice, Practice-based learning and improvement.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed180    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal