In the last decade, there has been substantial progress in the measurement and reporting of healthcare performance. Many stakeholders, especially policymakers, health care payers, healthcare -advocacy and consumer groups are pressing for the increased use of performance measurement and reporting for purposes of accountability and population health, or to promote improvements in the delivery of care.
The trend is particularly marked in the US, where almost all healthcare providers participated in such performance measurement and reporting program . The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) launched the first national program in the US for the measurement of hospital performance in 1998. Since 2002, all hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission were required to collect and report data on performance  . In 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the largest payer for healthcare in the US, began financially penalizing US hospitals that did not report to the CMS the same performance data they collected for the Joint Commission, and in 2005, the CMS began its own public reporting .
In 2006, the Institute of Medicine published a highly influential report, Performance Measurement: Accelerating Improvement, which advocated strongly for performance measurement as a central tenet of US health care reform  .
Another watershed event occurred in 2010 when the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) reported the results of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures at 221 U.S. cardiac surgery programs [5,6] . The reported ratings derive from a registry developed by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in 1989. More than 90% of the approximately 1100 U.S. cardiac surgery programs participate in the registry. Registry data are collected from patients' charts and include key outcomes such as complications and death, the severity of preoperative illness, coexisting conditions, surgical technique, and medications. The data-collection and auditing methods, specifications of the measures, and statistical approaches have evolved over the course of two decades and reflect a substantial commitment by US cardiac surgeons and their leadership [7,8].
Many other countries have followed US's footstep and embraced this performance measurement paradigm. In the UK, the NHS has embarked on a Modernization Program which has developed several National Service Frameworks that specify goals, benchmarks and performance measures for targeted clinical areas . In Australia, a Council for Safety and Quality in Healthcare was established in 2000 which has led to a groundswell of projects implementing performance measurement and reporting .
In Malaysia, the government has recently unveiled a Government Transformation Programme (GTP) known as the National Key Results Areas (NKRA) which includes improving people's quality of life, eradicating corruption, reducing crime rate, addressing poverty. As part of this program, the government has introduced Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to measure the performance level of government services. The Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) in the Prime Minister's Department was formed in September 2009 to oversee the implementation and assess the progress of the GTP . However, this has yet to impact on the public health services where performance measurement and reporting activity remains undeveloped. Similarly in the private healthcare sector, while financial performance measures are well established and routinely reported, robust healthcare performance measures that reflect the core business of the healthcare industry are practically non-existent.
Not surprisingly robust and user friendly program to enable healthcare performance measurement and reporting in Malaysia is still lacking. We have therefore developed the Healthcare Performance Measurement and Reporting System, HPMRS in short, to fill this gap in our healthcare sector. The HPMRS Protocol of the HPMRS program has been reviewed and approved by the MOH's Research & Ethics Committee. All interested Clinical and Healthcare provider groups are welcome to sign up.
Healthcare Performance Measurement and Reporting system or program should be designed to serve three broad purposes :
Many stakeholders make important decisions that motivate or influence care delivery. Purchasers and consumers make decisions about the selection of health plans, providers, and treatment options; clinicians about the referral of patients to specialists, hospitals, and other providers; public- and private-sector oversight organizations about licensure, accreditation, board certification, and recognition awards; and purchasers/healthcare payers about which providers to include in their networks. To this end, healthcare performance information should be available to assist these stakeholders in making informed choices about providers.
"You cannot improve what you cannot measure" is a well known truism. Stakeholders engaged in the delivery of health care services need information they can act upon to improve the quality of those services. Clinicians need performance data to support ongoing quality improvement. Health care administrators and managers and the members of their governing boards need performance data to support efforts directed at the redesign of care processes and the operation of systems to support care delivery.
The health care delivery system is one of many factors that can influence the health of a population. A well-functioning performance measurement and reporting system should provide information to support the broad range of public policy decisions that influence population health and ultimately the need for health care services.
Healthcare system has six aims as articulated in the Institute of Medicine's Quality Chasm report . These are healthcare should be safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable.
To this end, the program shall:
Healthcare is highly complex and heterogeneous and will require multiple methods for assessing its performance.
Selection of a specific clinical or therapy area to be targeted for performance measurement and reporting shall be guided by consideration of the performance improvement goals of the therapy areas and by 3 specific criteria which are (1) Impact, (2) Improvability and (3) Inclusiveness.
Within the selected therapy areas, extant performance measures will be identified and implemented and, when they are absent, development and testing of additional measures, or improvement of the evidence base from which potential measures could be drawn, would be initiated.
Adoption of extant measures should be guided as follows :
The design of all performance measure must adhere with 5 criteria, viz (1) Scientifically Sound, (2) Feasible, (3) Importance, (4) Alignment and (5) Comprehensiveness. The sub module has details on the definition of the performance measures for each individual therapy areas and specific health services covered by this protocol
The required data elements for the selected performance measures shall be defined and specified by sponsor designated CRO or vendor company. On this basis, the designated CRO or vendor company will design and develop the data capture instrument, including eCRF and paper DAF and the supporting information infrastructure.
Data Quality assurance (QA) is essential in the conduct of performance measurement, and will be effected through several mechanisms. No less essential is the auditing of the collected data and analytic methods prior to reporting the performance results
Performance results will be published and disseminated through HPMRS website, medical journal and mass media to enable users (consumers, patients, purchasers, regulators and referring clinicians) to access these information, and to which healthcare providers whose performance are measured may reference their results.
We encourage the use of data collected by the HPMRS for research and other purposes. To this end, public-use data and associated documentation will be made available for download by the public at HPMRS website.
|01.||Chassin MR, Loeb JM, Schmaltz SP, Wachter RM. Accountability Measures - Using Measurement to Promote Quality Improvement. N Engl J Med 2010;363;683-688.|
|02.||The Joint Commission. 2009 ORYX performance measure reporting requirements for hospitals and guidelines for measure selections. (at http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/ rdonlyres/64C5EDF0-253A-42CE-9DE5-C8AFE6755267/ 0/09_Oryx_hap.pdf.)|
|03.||Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare modernization update (at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MMAUpdate/.)|
|04.||Institute of Medicine. Performance measurement: accelerating improvement. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.|
|05.||Consumer Reports home page. (http://www.consumerreportshealth.org.)|
|06.||Timothy G. Ferris, M.D., M.P.H., and David F. Torchiana. Public Release of Clinical Outcomes Data - Online CABG Report Cards N Engl J Med 2010;363:1593-1595|
|07.||Shahian DM, Edwards FH, Ferraris VA, et al. Quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 1 - conceptual framework and measure selection. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83:Suppl:S3-S12.|
|08.||O'Brien SM, Shahian DM, DeLong ER, et al. Quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 2 - statistical considerations in composite measure scoring and provider rating. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:Suppl:S13-S26|
|09.||NHS Modernisation Agency. 2003. Real Measurement for Real Improvement Using Statistical Process Control. [Online]. Available: http://www.modern.nhs.uk/search/.|
|10.||Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Healthcare. 2004. Safety and Quality Council. [Online]. Available: http://www.safetyandquality.org/index.cfm.|
|11.||The Government Transformation Programme Available at: http://www.pemandu.gov.my/index.html? option=com_content&view=article&id=601&Itemid=83&lang=en|
|12.||Institute of Medicine 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press|
|13.||Institute of Medicine 2003. Priority Areas for National Action: Transforming Health Care Quality. Adams K, Corrigan JM, eds. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press|
|14.||McGlynn EA, Cassel CK, Leatherman ST, et al. Establishing national goals for quality improvement. Med Care 2002;41(suppl):I-16-I-29|
|15.||Spertus JA, Eagle KA, Krumholz HM, et al. American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Methodology for the Selection and Creation of Performance Measures for Quantifying the Quality of Cardiovascular Care J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1147-56|
|16.||McGlynn EA. Selecting common measures of quality and system performance. Med Care 2002; 41(suppl):I-39 -I-47|
|17.||James B. Information systems concepts for quality measurement. Med Care 2002;41(suppl):I-71-I-79.|
|18.||National Institute of Health Ministry of health Malaysia. NIH Guidelines for conducting research at MOH Institutes and facilities. Available at: www.nmrr.gov.my|
|19.||Epstein M. Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology practice. ISPE commentary. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety 2005;14:589-95.|
|20.||Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences: 1991 International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies. Available at: www.cioms.ch|
|21.||Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45-Department of Health and Human Services; Part 46-Protection of Human subjects. Updated 1 Oct 1997. Available at: www4.law.cornell.edu/cfr|
|23.||Malaysian Public sector management of ICT Security handbook. MAMPU 2001|
|24.||Directive 94/ /EC and 95/EC Council On the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. 1995. Implementation 2000|
|25.||European Network of Cancer Registries. Guidelines on Confidentiality in population-based Cancer Registration in the EU. Feb 2002|
|26.||US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996 (HIPAA).|
|27.||Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Filardo G, Ferraris VA, Haan CK, Rich JB, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1-Coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2009; 88(Suppl 1): S2-22.|
|28.||SM, Shahian DM, Delong ER, et al. Quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: Part 2-Statistical Considerations in composite measure scoring and provider ratings. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2007; 83: 13-26.|
|29.||Khuri SF, DaleyJ, Henderson W, et al. The National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180:519-609|