Back to Freepaper Session

The quality measurement system in ophthalmology (QMSO): quality report and look-out

Session Details

Session Title: Practice Styles

Session Date/Time: Monday 07/10/2013 | 14:30-16:10

Paper Time: 16:00

Venue: Emerald (First Floor)

First Author: : D.Haas GERMANY

Co Author(s): :    J. Förster   T. Hebst           

Abstract Details

Purpose:

The third and last part of presentation deals with important implications and conclusions, which may be drawn based on presented results. Using the example of cataract surgery, a customized quality report will be presented, which includes several important and useful information. It will be provided for every participating surgery center. The quality report enables every surgery center an assessment of its own performance in the anonymous context of achieved medical quality by other participants.

Setting:

The structure of our quality report will be presented with the help of appropriate examples. The quality report is built up of two parts: The first part contains measurement results for different outcome variables in an anonymous context of all participating surgery centers and thus works as a benchmark system. Variables of outcome quality are displayed separately and are subsumed to three subarea quality indices, which include measurable and subjectively ascertained findings as well as different aspects of patient satisfaction. The overall quality index displays the total center score, which displays achieved outcome quality in each case. The second part of quality report includes a management summary of the main results. In case of significantly negative quality differences compared to overall average, possible reasons as well as appropriate actions will be offered.

Methods:

Since the main part of presentation contains the structure of developed quality report, content will be presented predominantly in a descriptive way.

Results:

By generating an individual quality report for each surgery center, different goals are pursued. First of all, achieved quality of medical outcome should be available for every surgery center in order to access its own performance in the frame of other participating surgery centers. Furthermore, quality deficits in certain outcome variables should be recognized immediately so that possible reactions can be undertaken in time. Since quality report has not been offered to every surgery center, first experiences have limited explanatory power but show promising results: Nearly every participating centers, who have received an individual quality report, showed an active interest in their own outcome quality. Possible quality deficits have been discussed among concerned surgeons. Appropriate measures have been taken promptly and quality improvements may be observable in the following quality reports. Further detailed results will be presented.

Conclusions:

The last part of three presentations deals with the quality report, which should be customized for and offered to every participating surgery center. Based upon statistical results, which have already been presented in the second part of presentations, two-part content structure will be explained. In this context, different presentations of quality outcome variables will be presented predominantly in a descriptive way as well as exemplary management summaries. First results show promising results: experiences of surgery center, who already received a quality report, show an active interest in their own outcome quality. Furthermore, appropriate measures have been taken due to quality deficits in certain outcome variables. The success of undertaken measures can be controlled by following quality reports.

Financial Interest:

NONE