Benchmarking Critical Care Outcomes: Using data to drive effectiveness and efficiency Thomas L. Higgins MD MBA Vice Chair for Clinical Affairs, Department of Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield MA Professor of Medicine, Surgery & Anesthesiology, Tufts University School of Medicine 5,815 0.86 nr APACHE-IV (2002-3) 110,558 0.88 Better than expected Mortality and LOS 0.08 20.0 Project IMPACT Data 2005-06 <0.001 SAPS-III (2002) 16,784 0.85 0.39 0.0 12 0.104 FY 0.86 11 13,152 FY SAPS-II (1993) 5.0 10 0.31 FY 0.82 09 124,885 Hosp LOS 10.0 FY MPM0-III (2001-4) Hospitals within control limits 08 0.62 FY 0.84 07 12,610 ICU LOS FY MPM0-II (1993) 15.0 06 0.87 FY 216,626 05 ICNARC (1995-2003) – 13.5% in 44,288 patients, APACHE-IV validation (2002-2003) • Zimmerman et al, Crit Care Med 34:1297, 2006 25.0 FY • Higgins et al, Crit Care Med 35:827, 2007 APACHE-II (1985) 04 Hospital Mortality Rate for ICU patients: ~6 to 19% – 13.8% in 124,855 patients, Project IMPACT (2001-2004) HLGOF, p MICU + SICU Patients, BMC, 2002-2012 excludes Heart & Vascular (CVICU, CCU) FY • AUROC from Nathanson et al, Crit Care Med 2007; 35:1853 03 • Halpern and Pastores, Crit Care Med 2010; 38:67-71 n Length of Stay Reduction FY 93,955 CCM beds in 3,150 Hospitals (increasing 1%/yr 2000-2005) 23.2 million patient days (10.6% increase over 5 years) Cost per day: $3518 (30.4% increase over 5 years) Total costs: $ 81.7 Billion (44.2% increase over 5 years) – Critical Care accounts for 13.4% of hospital costs – 4.1% of national health expenditures – 0.66% of GDP (rate of increase = 3.6% per year) Model Resource Utilization Graph 02 • • • • Current ICU Benchmarking Tools FY Critical Care Medicine in the US: Big business, and growing Worse than expected resource utilization (Length of Stay) AUROC = area under receiver operating curve, ideally >0.80) HLGOF = Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit, ideally >0.05 Central Line Associated Blood Stream Infections (CLABSI) Who wants to know? Patients, Families, Physicians, Administrators, Insurers, the media….. Driving Change Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) • Observed Risk-Adjusted Mortality SMR = • Expected Risk-Adjusted Mortality Values 2 SD > 1.0 may indicate poor performance Values 2 SD < 1.0 indicated superior performance • Major Domains of Interest • • • • Clinical Quality – Standardized mortality rate (observed/expected) – ICU and hospital lengths of stay – Complications (CR-BSI, VAP, “never” events) – Patient and family satisfaction Human Capital – Engagement, turnover, morale Financial Performance – Revenue and Costs (Part A and Part B) – Resource Utilization by provider Academics: Research and Education • • • • • Mortality outcomes are highly dependent on presenting patient condition – Unadjusted results misleading • Mortality rate for DKA <2% • Mortality rate for septic shock ~30% Case-mix thus affects unadjusted overall mortality rate Adjusted data is required for internal Quality Improvement efforts Risk stratification helpful (but not infallible) for individual patient prognosis Risk-adjustment models must meet criteria for discrimination (area under ROC >0.80) and calibration (non-significant HL-GOF) ) Other Domains of Interest • Clinical Quality – Patient and family satisfaction – H-CAHPS Scores Human Capital – Engagement, turnover, morale – Gallup EmployeeSurvey Financial Performance – Revenue and Costs (Part A and Part B) – Income Statement – Resource Utilization by provider – Premier Database Academics: Research and Education – – Grant funding, number of publications, faculty teaching evaluations (New Innovations) • • • Driving Change Using ICU Benchmarking Tools Example of calculating SMR for a hypothetical ICU One patient each; 10 diagnoses Accurate Risk Stratification Needed Normalized ratios can be created for any outcome: e.g.: ventilator days In this example, ventilator days are higher than predicted, indicating an opportunity for improvement Interventions could include education, institution of “daily wake-up”, attention to VAP and CLABSI, respiratory therapy protocols, or twicedaily weaning trials Patient Diagnosis Predicted Actual DKA 2% 0 Pneumonia Asthma Acute MI Septic Shock Pneumonia Heart Failure Septic Shock Ruptured AAA Heart Failure AVERAGE: 12% 10% 24% 30% 12% 15% 30% 65% 15% 21.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.20 • SMR for this ICU= Observed (20%) Predicted (21.5%) • = 0.93 • Morbidity and mortality – Evidence-based bundles / ordersets; CPOE, medication scanning; alerts, early warning – Excess length-of-stay – Admission, discharge, triage policies – Open versus closed units – Ventilator weaning and sedation practices Ventilator-associated Pneumonia – Ventilator “bundle” of care including HOB elevation – Respiratory therapy equipment and change-out policies Catheter-related Bloodstream Infections – Attention to technique and tools – Operator training restrictions Summary • • • • • • Measuring ICU performance requires a balanced scorecard Outcomes must be severity-adjusted – Tools include APACHE, MPM, SAPS – Endpoints include mortality, LOS – Normalized ratios/benchmarking can drive change Readmission rates must also be severity-adjusted but once adjusted do not correlate with case-mix adjusted mortality or other quality measures, raising questions about CMS use of metric – Kramer et al, Crit Care Med 2013; 41:24-33 Quality metrics also include CLABSI, VAP, complications and patient satisfaction Track employee engagement as well as family satisfaction Academic institutions may also track research productivity, teaching evaluations, publications www.postersession.com