April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Comparing Quality Performance Measures Publicly Reported by Ophthalmic Organizations
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Monica M Michelotti
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Jennifer S Weizer
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Joshua D Stein
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Simon P Kelly
    Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, United Kingdom
  • Declan W Flanagan
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Anne C Odergren
    St Erik's Eye Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Paul P Lee
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Melanie Hingorani
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Monica Michelotti, None; Jennifer Weizer, None; Joshua Stein, None; Simon Kelly, None; Declan Flanagan, None; Anne Odergren, None; Paul Lee, Board of Advisors of AAO Hoskins Center on Quality and Patient Safety. (S), University of Michigan, Chair (E); Melanie Hingorani, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 5586. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Monica M Michelotti, Jennifer S Weizer, Joshua D Stein, Simon P Kelly, Declan W Flanagan, Anne C Odergren, Paul P Lee, Melanie Hingorani; Comparing Quality Performance Measures Publicly Reported by Ophthalmic Organizations. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):5586.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: There is increasing global interest in evaluating health care quality by measuring clinical and patient-reported outcomes in all specialties and publishing these outcomes for the medical field and for the lay public. Several ophthalmic provider groups now publicly report performance, but the metrics used differ. Better understanding may advance work in improving the care of ophthalmic patients.

Methods: An online search for quality, especially outcomes, data for international ophthalmic institutions was performed; results were compared with published outcomes and performance data. The World Association of Eye Hospitals provided additional unpublished hospital-specific measures. Data were available from Aravind Eye Hospital, Cole Eye Institute, European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery, University of Michigan W.K. Kellogg Eye Center, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Moorfields Eye Hospital, Singapore National Eye Center, and St Erik’s Eye Hospital.

Results: Multiple institutions reported similar complication rates for ophthalmic surgery. All measured wound infection rates and 30 day unplanned reoperation rates. Endophthalmitis rates after cataract surgery ranged from 0.00-0.09% (n=8). Most institutions reported either postoperative visual acuity (n=6) or difference in refraction from target after cataract surgery (n=4). The most commonly reported outcome was best-corrected visual acuity better than or equal to 20/40 (range 84-100%, n=3). Variance in reporting postoperative visual acuity outcomes occurred in the choice of measuring final or change in visual acuity, best- or uncorrected visual acuity, and timing of measurements. Eight institutions reported 22 cataract surgery outcomes and three reported rates for only uncomplicated patients. Subspecialty outcomes demonstrated similar trends. Differences in timing and exclusion criteria limited direct comparisons.

Conclusions: Because published outcomes and quality of care data in ophthalmology varies by institution, understanding and identifying metrics that all might agree upon is crucial. Comparing outcomes by international ophthalmic institutions can provide insight for assessment for a broader and lay audience, helping ophthalmologists benchmark services in the timely quest for quality and safety.

Keywords: 462 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: outcomes/complications • 465 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques • 459 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: biostatistics/epidemiology methodology  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×