HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docx

HS410 Unit 6: Quality Management - Discussion
Discussion
This is a graded Discussion
. Please refer to the Discussion Board Grading Rubric in Course
Home / Grading Rubrics.
Respond to all of the following questions and be sure to respond
to two of your other classmates’ postings:
1.
What are the steps in the quality improvement model and how
is benchmarking involved?
2. What are the stages in which data quality errors found in a
health record most commonly occur?
3. What is the definition of risk management?
4. What are the parts of an effective risk management program?
5. What is utilization review and why is it important in
healthcare?
6. What is the process of utilization review?
Please paper should be 400-500 words and in an essay format,
strictly on topic, original with real scholar references to support
your answers.
NO PHARGIARISM PLEASE!
This is the Chapter reading for this assignment:

Read Chapter 7 in
Today’s Health Information Management
.
INTRODUCTION
Quality health care “means doing the right thing at the right
time, in the right way, for the right person, and getting the best
possible results.”1 The term quality, by definition, can mean
excellence, status, or grade; thus, it can be measured and
quantified. The patient, and perhaps the patient's family, may
interpret quality health care differently from the way that health
care providers interpret it. Therefore, it is important to
determine—if possible—what is “right” and what is “wrong”
with regard to quality health care. The study and analysis of
health care are important to maintain a level of quality that is
satisfactory to all parties involved. As a result of the current
focus on patient safety, and in an attempt to reduce deaths and
complications, providing the best quality health care while
maintaining cost controls has become a challenge to all
involved. Current quality initiatives are multifaceted and
include government-directed, private sectorsupported, and
consumer-driven projects.
This chapter explores the historical development of health
care quality including a review of the important pioneers and
the tools they developed. Their work has been studied, refined,
and widely used in a variety of applications related to
performance-improvement activities. Risk management is
discussed, with emphasis on the importance of coordination
with quality activities. The evolution of utilization management
is also reviewed, with a focus on its relationship to quality
management.
In addition, this chapter explores current trends in data
collection and storage, and their application to improvements in
quality care and patient safety. Current events are identified
that influence and provide direction to legislative support and
funding. This chapter also provides multiple tips and tools for

both personal and institutional use.
DATA QUALITY
Data quality refers to the high grade, superiority, or excellence
of data. Data quality is intertwined with the concept of quality
patient care; it refers to data that can demonstrate and represent
in an objective sense the delivery of quality patient care. When
the data collected are reflective of the care provided, one can
reach conclusions about the quality of care the patient received.
Historical Development
The concept of studying the quality of patient care has been a
part of the health care field for almost 100 years. Individual
surgeons, such as A. E. Codman, pioneered the practice of
monitoring surgical outcomes in patients and documenting
physician errors concerning specific patients. These physicians
began the practice of conducting morbidity and mortality
conferences as a means to improve patient care. Building on the
prior work of individual surgeons, the American College of
Surgeons (ACS) created the Hospital Standardization Program
in 1918. This program served as the genesis for the
accreditation movement of the 20th century, which included the
concept of quality patient care and the formation of the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) in 1951. The
ACS transferred the Hospital Standardization Program to the
JCAH in 1953.
Efforts to improve the quality of patient care have varied
during the 20th century, beginning with the establishment of
formalized mechanisms to measure patient care against
established criteria. A timeline illustrating these efforts is
shown in Figure 7-1. These mechanisms focused on an
organization's reaction to individual events and the mistakes of
individual health care providers. A variety of quality efforts
followed, including ones developed in other industries that were
adapted to the health care environment. The concepts of total
quality management, defined as the organization-wide approach
to quality improvement, and continuous quality improvement,
defined as the systematic, team-based approach to process and

performance improvement, introduced the team-based approach
to quality health care. These newer efforts moved the focus
from individual events and health care providers to an
organization's systems and their potential for improvement.
Figure 7-1 | Quality management timeline
Accompanying the change in focus were new terms such as
quality management, quality assurance, process improvement,
and performance improvement. Quality management generally
means that every aspect of health care quality may be subject to
managerial oversight. Quality assurance refers to those actions
taken to establish, protect, promote, and improve the quality of
health care. Process improvement refers to the improvement of
processes involved in the delivery of health care. Performance
improvement refers to the improvement of performance as it
relates to patient care. Regardless of the names applied and
their respective approaches, most health care organizations in
the 21st century are bound by the requirements of various
accrediting and regulatory bodies to engage in some function
that focuses on the quality of patient care.2
In order to measure patient care for quality purposes, one
must first possess data. The data crucial to supporting any
quality initiative are the data found in the patient health record.
These data must be reliable with respect to quality. Data errors
can be made during many stages, such as when data are entered
into the record (the documentation process), when data are
retrieved from the record (the abstracting process), when data
are manipulated (the coding process), when data are processed
(the indexing and registry processes), and when data are used
(the interpreting process). At each stage, the data must be both
consistent and accurate. Furthermore, good quality data are the
result of coordinated efforts to ensure integrity at each stage. A
recent focus on the legibility of handwritten data, the
appropriate use of abbreviations, and their relationship to
medication errors has increased pressure from accrediting
agencies to improve the quality of data as a means to improve
patient safety.

Quality health care management is the result of the dedication
of a variety of professionals working in all levels of
employment and in all aspects of health care. These
professionals are supported by governmental offices at the
federal, state, and local levels that define what data they require
to be reported to them. When data definitions are not specified
by the agency or organization requiring a report, the
responsibility to define the data falls to the team or group that
is responsible for collecting and disseminating the data.
Fundamental to the collection and dissemination of data is the
application of the appropriate collection format and reporting
tools. However, before data collection can begin, there must be
consensus on the perimeters of the data to be collected. The
team or group should also select an assessment model, such as
quality circles, PDSA, or FOCUS PDCA. Quality circles are
small groups of workers who perform similar work that meet
regularly to analyze and solve work-related problems and to
recommend solutions to management. These groups are also
known as Kaizen teams, a Japanese term meaning to generate or
implement employee ideas.3 PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act), also
known as PDCA (Plan-Do- Check-Act),4 is illustrated in Figure
7-2. FOCUS PDCA5 involves finding a process to improve,
organizing a team that knows the process, clarifying the current
knowledge of the process, understanding the causes of special
variation, and selecting the process improvement. Figure 7-3
illustrates the FOCUS PDCA approach.
Essentially, these assessment models provide groups with
guidance about how to organize the process. These models were
developed largely as a result of the manufacturing industry
quality movement of the 1950s and 1960s led by W. Edwards
Deming, J. M. Juran, and Philip Crosby. In the 1960s, these
models were applied to the health care sector by Avedis
Donabedian, who separated the quality of health care measures
into three distinct categories: structure, process, and outcomes.6
In the 1970s, when the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations, now known as the Joint Commission,

and the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now
known as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),
began to mandate quality initiatives, health care looked to the
successes of the manufacturing industry for direction and ideas.
Figure 7-2 | Plan, do, study (or check), and act assessment
model
Figure 7-3 | FOCUS assessment model
The quest for quality, and the tools necessary to achieve it,
eventually led to the development of the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award. The U.S. Congress created this award
in 1987,7 which led to the creation of a new public-private
partnership. Principal support for the award comes from the
Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
The U.S. president announces the award annually. The award
initially recognized the manufacturing and service sectors,
including both large and small businesses, but it was expanded
in 1999 to include the education and health care sectors; several
health care organizations have applied for and received this
award since then. In 2006, the program expanded even further to
consider nonprofit and governmental organizations in the
application process. The seven categories in which participants
are judged for the Malcolm Baldrige Award are listed in Table
7-1. The focus of the evaluation centers on total quality
management with emphasis on sustaining results.
Table 7-1 | Health Care Criteria in the Malcolm Baldrige Award
Leadership
Strategic planning
Customer and market focus
Measurement, analysis, and knowledge management
Workforce focus
Operations focus
Business results
Source: Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award,
http://www.quality.nist.gov Courtesy of The National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Early pioneers who applied the Malcolm Baldrige concepts

found it difficult at times to achieve effective implementation
and/or sustain improvement. In an effort to achieve the greatest
possible savings from the improvement projects, the Juran
Institute, working with Motorola, developed a methodology
called Six Sigma.8 Six Sigma is defined as the measurement of
quality to a level of near perfection or without defects. General
Electric (GE) and Allied Signal (now Honeywell) also
contributed to the development and popularity of the
methodology. Part of its success is attributed to the organization
of training and leadership. High-level executives are trained and
appointed as “champions” to drive the program, and employees
receive training and support to become certified internal
experts. The amount of training one receives results in different
belt levels: black belts are technical personnel who are trained
to apply the statistically based methodology. Master black belts
coach black belts and coordinate projects. The project team
members are referred to as green belts and also receive basic
process-improvement training.
The Six Sigma Improvement Methodology is similar to that of
PDCA and FOCUS PDSA, but it uses five steps, known as
(D)MAIC: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control.
Many components of the health care industry have applied the
Six Sigma improvement methodology toward the elimination of
errors rather than the correction of defects (as it has been
applied in industry). The approach is similar and both
ultimately strive for perfection. In light of the fact that one
error can be of catastrophic consequence if it involves a sentinel
event or even death, the concept of near perfection in the Six
Sigma standards is important for all applications of health care
delivery.
Federal Efforts Whereas the quest for quality led to the
development of the Baldrige Award and Six Sigma, efforts at
the federal level resulted in the formation of the Agency for
Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) in 1989. Later
changed to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ) as part of the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of

1999, this body is a scientific research agency located within
the Public Health Service (PHS) of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. AHRQ focuses on quality of care
research and acts as a “science partner” between the public and
private sectors to improve the quality and safety of patient care.
Over time, the agency has changed its focus from developing
and supporting clinical practice guidelines to developing
evidence-based guidelines. AHRQ's mission is to develop
scientific evidence that enables health care decision makers to
reach more informed health care choices. The agency assumes
the responsibility to conduct, support, and disseminate
scientific research designed to improve the outcomes, quality,
and safety of health care. The agency is also committed to
supporting efforts to reduce health care costs, broaden access to
services, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
ways health care services are organized, delivered, and
financed.
AHRQ has achieved numerous accomplishments since its
inception. These accomplishments range in focus from the
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the Healthcare Cost
and Utilization Project (HCUP), and the Consumer Assessment
of Healthcare Plans Survey (CAHPS), to the grant component of
AHRQ's Translation of Research into Practice (TRIP) activity
and the Quality/Safety of Patient Care program. The latter
program encompasses both the Patient Safety Health Care
Information program and the Health Care Information
Technology program. Each of the programs listed here provides
valuable information to the agency. For example, the Medical
Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) serves as the only national
source for annual data on how Americans use and pay for
medical care. The survey collects detailed information from
families on access, use, expense, insurance coverage, and
quality. This information provides public and private sector
decision makers with important data to analyze changes in
behavior and the market. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization
Project (HCUP) also provides information regarding the cost

and use of health care resources but focuses on how health care
is used by the consumer. HCUP is a family of databases
containing routinely collected information that is translated into
a uniform format to facilitate comparison. The Consumer
Assessment of Health Plans (CAHP) uses surveys to collect data
from beneficiaries about their health care plans. The grant
component, Translation of Research into Practice (TRIP),
provides the financial support to initiate or improve programs
where identified. Patient safety research is also an important
element of these activities and includes a significant effort
directed toward promoting information technology, particularly
in small and rural communities where health information
technology has been limited due to cost and availability. Other
research efforts for patient safety are focused on reducing
medical errors and improving pharmaceutical outcomes through
the Centers of Excellence for Research and Therapeutics
(CERT) program.
E-HIM
AHRQ has provided grants to increase the use of health
information technology, including electronic health records.
As a result of the growing concern for the increased use of
health information technology (HIT) to improve the quality of
health care and control costs, AHRQ awarded $139 million in
contracts and grants in 2004 to promote the use of health
information technology. The goals of the AHRQ projects are
listed in Table 7-2. Grants were awarded to providers, hospitals,
and health care systems, including rural health care settings,
critical access hospitals, hospitals and programs for children, as
well as university hospitals in urban areas. The locations were
spread throughout the country from coast to coast, border to
border, and included Alaska and Hawaii. Many grant recipients
sought to develop HIT infrastructure and data-sharing capacity
among clinical provider organizations. Other grant recipients
sought to improve existing systems that were considered
outdated, or to install technology where it had not previously
existed, such as pharmacy dispensing systems, bar coding,

patient scheduling, and decision-support systems. Some grants
went toward the construction of a fully integrated electronic
health record (EHR), such as one effort by the Tulare District
Hospital Rural Health Consortium. Some universities received
grants to employ technology for disease-specific projects, such
as the Trial of Decision Support to Improve Diabetes Outcomes
at Case Western Reserve University; others sought to develop
cancer care management programs, such as the Technology
Exchange for Cancer Health Network (TECH-Net) established
by the University of Tennessee; and others worked to automate
tracking of adverse events, such as the Automated Adverse Drug
Events Detection and Intervention System established by Duke
University. Still other grants focused on promoting statewide
and regional networks for health information exchange,
sometimes referred to as regional health information
organizations (RHIOs). The goal of these projects is to develop
a health information exchange that connects the systems of
various local health care providers so they can better coordinate
care and enable clinicians to obtain patient information at the
point of care.9 More information concerning the work of RHIOs
is found in Chapter 10, “Database Management.”
Table 7-2 | Goals of the AHRQ Projects
Improve patient safety by reducing medical errors
Increase health information sharing between providers, labs,
pharmacies, and patients
Help patients transition between health care settings
Reduce duplicative and unnecessary testing
Increase our knowledge and understanding of the clinical,
safety, quality, financial, and organizational values and benefits
of HIT
© 2014 Cengage Learning, All Rights Reserved.
Among its accomplishments of the 21st century, the AHRQ
has begun certifying patient safety organizations (PSOs). These
organizations were created pursuant to the Patient Safety and
Quality Improvement Act of 2005 and are designed to serve as
independent entities that collect, analyze, and aggregate

information about patient safety. They use this data to identify
the underlying causes of lapses in patient safety. PSOs gather
data through the voluntary reporting of health care providers
and organizations according to the terms of the Patient Safety
and Quality Improvement Final Rule (Safety Rule).
A second 21st century accomplishment of the AHRQ involves
the creation of the National Strategy for Quality Improvement
in Health Care (National Quality Strategy). Created pursuant to
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the National
Quality Strategy aims to improve the overall quality of patient
care, reduce costs, and improve patient health. AHRQ
developed the National Quality Strategy using evidence-based
results of medical research and input from a wide range of
stakeholders across the health care system.
A similar effort at the federal level to improve quality patient
care initiated in the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and resulted in creation of the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Innovation. Also created pursuant to the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Center is designed to
test innovative care and payment models and encourage
adoption of practices that reduce costs, while simultaneously
delivering highquality patient care at lower cost.
E-HIM
The U.S. President connects the use of electronic health records
with improvement in quality patient care.
One of the most significant efforts to focus attention on the
importance of advancing health information technology as a
means to improve the quality of patient care was made by U.S.
President George W. Bush. In his State of the Union Address on
January 20, 2004, he stated, “By computerizing health records,
we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and
improve care.”10 He acted on this statement shortly thereafter,
establishing a national coordinator for health information
technology within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. This coordinator announced that a 10-year plan would
be developed to outline the steps necessary to transform the

delivery of health care by adopting health information
technology in both the public and private sectors. Included in
these steps are the EHR and a national health information
infrastructure (NHII), topics that are addressed in further detail
in Chapter 10, “Database Management,” and Chapter 11,
“Information Systems and Technology.”
Private Efforts Concern for improving the quality of health care
also moved others to action. The Institute of Medicine, a private
nonprofit organization that provides health policy advice under
a congressional charter granted to the National Academy of
Sciences, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. health care
system and issued a report in 2001. This report, Crossing the
Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,11
identified a significant number of changes that had affected the
delivery of health care services, specifically the shift from care
of acute illnesses to care of chronic illnesses. The report
recognized that current health care systems are more devoted to
dealing with acute, episodic conditions, and are poorly
organized to meet the challenges of continuity of care. The
report challenged all health care constituencies—health
professionals, federal and state policy makers, purchasers of
health care, regulators, organization managers and governing
boards, and consumers—to commit to a national statement of
purpose and adopt a shared vision of six specific aims for
improvement.
The report did not include a specific “blueprint” or standard
for the future because it encouraged imagination and innovation
to drive the effort. Specific recommendations included a set of
guiding principles known as the Ten Steps for Redesign, the
establishment of the Health Care Quality Innovation Fund to
initiate the process of change, and development of care
processes for common health conditions—most of them
chronic—that afflict great numbers of people. This report
served as a driving force behind the funding of grants through
AHRQ and the other programs that have already been identified.
The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) is

another organization involved in improving health care quality.
Established in 1990, this organization focuses on the managed
care industry. It began accrediting these organizations in 1991
in an effort to provide standardized information about them. Its
Managed Care Organization (MCO) program is voluntary, and
approximately 50 percent of the current HMOs in this country
have undergone review by NCQA. Earning the accreditation
status is important to many HMOs, because some large
employers refuse to conduct business with health plans that
have not been accredited by NCQA. In addition, more than 30
states recognize the accreditation for regulatory requirements
and do not conduct separate reviews.
In 1992, NCQA assumed responsibility for management of the
Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS), a tool
used by many health plans to measure performance of care and
service. Purchasers and consumers use the data to compare the
performances of managed health care plans. Because more than
60 measures are present in the data set, containing a high degree
of specificity, performance comparisons are considered very
reliable and comprehensive. The NCQA has designed an audit
process that utilizes certified auditors to assure data integrity
and validity. HEDIS data are frequently the source of health
plan “report cards” that are published in magazines and
newspapers. Included in HEDIS is the CAHPS 3.0H survey that
measures members' satisfaction with their care in areas such as
claims processing, customer service, and receiving needed care
quickly. The data are also used by the plans to help identify
opportunities for improvement. A sample of HEDIS measures is
shown in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3 | Sample HEDIS Measures, Addressing a Broad Range
of Important Topics
Asthma medication use
Controlling high blood pressure
Antidepressant medication management
Smoking cessation programs
Beta-blocker treatment after a heart attack

Source: Information compiled from the National Association for
Healthcare Quality (NAHQ), http://www.nahq.org.
Courtesy of the National Association for Healthcare Quality.
The NCQA also operates recognition programs for individual
physicians and medical groups. These programs are voluntary,
and physicians may apply through NCQA. Doctors who qualify
must meet widely accepted evidence-based standards of care.
One program includes a Diabetes Physician Recognition
Program that was developed in conjunction with the American
Diabetes Association. This program recognizes physicians who
keep their patients' blood sugar and blood pressure at acceptable
levels and routinely perform eye and foot examination. The
Heart/Stroke Recognition Program (HSRP) is a partnership with
the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
and recognizes doctors and practices that control their patients'
blood pressure and cholesterol levels, prescribe antithrombotics
such as aspirin, and provide advice for smokers looking to quit.
Table 7-4 | NCQA Accrediting Domains for Accountable Care
Organizations
Domain
Content
ACO structure and operations
The organization clearly defines its organizational structure,
demonstrates capability to manage resources and aligns provider
incentives through payment arrangements and other mechanisms
to promote the delivery of efficient and effective care.
Access to needed providers
The organization has sufficient numbers and types of
practitioners and provides timely access to culturally competent
health care.
Patient-centered primary care
The primary-care practices within the organization act as

medical homes for patients.
Care management
The organization collects, integrates and uses data from various
sources for care management, performance reporting, and
identifying patients for population health programs. The
organization provides resources to patients and practitioners to
support care management activities.
Care coordination and transitions
The organization facilitates timely exchange of information
between providers, patients, and their caregivers to promote
safe transitions.
Patient rights and responsibilities
The organization informs patients about the role of the ACO and
its services. It is transparent about its clinical performance and
any performance-based financial incentives offered to
practitioners.
Performance reporting and quality improvement
The organization measures and publicly reports performance on
clinical quality of care, patient experience, and cost measures.
The organization identifies opportunities for improvement and
brings together providers and stakeholders to collaborate on
improvement initiatives.
Source: National Committee on Quality Assurance,
www.ncqa.org.
Courtesy of the National Committee on Quality Assurance.
In 2011, NCQA began accrediting accountable care
organizations, an entity created pursuant to the Affordable Care
Act of 2010. An accountable care organization (ACO) refers to
a group of providers and suppliers of services (e.g., hospitals,
physicians, and others involved in patient care) that work
together to coordinate care for the patients who receive
Medicare health benefits. An ACO is designed to focus on

preventive care, coordinate care among providers to reduce
error and duplication of services, involve patients in their health
care, and contain costs. The accreditation domains to be applied
by NCQA to accountable care organizations are listed in Table
7-4.
The organization that brings all of the professionals involved
in quality health care management together is the National
Association for Healthcare Quality (NAHQ). This organization
is based on the idea that quality health care professionals drive
the delivery of vital data for effective decision making in health
care systems. Organized in 1975 as the National Association for
Quality Assurance Professionals (NAQAP) to represent these
health care workers, the organization provides educational,
research, and certification programs to its membership.
Members include a wide range of professionals who focus on
quality management, quality improvement,
case/care/disease/utilization management, and risk management.
The membership is composed of all levels of employment from
all types of health care settings. Members achieve certification
through examination and earn the credential of Certified
Professional in Healthcare Quality (CPHQ); the examination
recognizes professional and academic achievement. The
organization also promotes networking and mentoring through
educational meetings and publications. Membership includes
physicians, nurses, health information management
professionals, health care management professionals,
information systems management professionals, social workers,
and physical and occupational therapists, all with a common
focus on improving the outcomes of health care.
Tools
Equally important as selecting a methodology is using
assessment tools effectively. Several tools are often employed,
including idea generation, data gathering and organizing
techniques, cause analysis, and data display methods. While
each tool is applicable in many environments, they apply
especially well in the context of data quality because they assist

in identifying progress, relationships, and the presence or
absence of trends. This process of identification leads to a
determination of the presence, absence, or level of quality. One
useful resource for quality assessment tools is the Web site of
the American Society for Quality (http:// www.asq.com), where
instructions and samples are available.
When new ideas are needed to address an issue or problem,
brainstorming and benchmarking are often employed.
Brainstorming refers to an idea-generating tool in which ideas
are offered on a particular topic, in an unrestrained manner, by
all members of a group within a short period of time.
Brainstorming can be structured or unstructured, and it
generally employs guidelines to assure that ideas are not
criticized and that all ideas are accepted during the process.
Benchmarking refers to the structured process of comparing
outcomes or work practices generated by one group or
organization against those of an acknowledged superior
performer as a means of improving performance.
Once ideas are generated, the challenge lies in organizing
them into a fashion in which they can be processed or analyzed.
Organizational tools frequently used include affinity diagrams,
nominal group techniques, Gantt charts, and PERT. An affinity
diagram refers to a diagram that organizes information into a
visual pattern to show the relationship between factors in a
problem. This diagram is developed following a brainstorming
session by grouping ideas into categories. Nominal group
technique is an organizational tool wherein a list of ideas is
labeled alphabetically and then prioritized by determining
which ideas have the highest degree of importance or should be
considered first. Gantt charts are graphic representations that
show the time relationships in a project; these are often used to
track the progress of a project and the completion of milestones
and goals. Within the health care context, they are often used in
process improvement activities to depict clinical guidelines or
critical paths of treatment. PERT stands for Program Evaluation
and Review Technique and is a tool used to track activities

according to a time sequence, thereby showing the
interdependence of activities. Concurrent activities are called
parallel activities and follow arrows to document their paths.
PERT is often used by health care teams as a means to complete
process improvement activities on time and in the proper order.
Figure 7-4 | A sample cause-and-effect diagram
When the root of a problem or situation is particularly
difficult to understand, analysis tools such as cause-and-effect
diagrams and Pareto charts may be used. A cause-and-effect
diagram, sometimes referred to as a fishbone or Ishikawa
diagram, identifies major categories of factors that influence an
effect and the sub-factors within each of those categories. The
diagram begins with broad causes and works toward specifics,
often examining the categories of the 4 Ms (methods/manpower
/materials/machinery) or the 4 Ps (policies/procedures/people
/plant). See Figure 7-4 for a sample cause-and-effect diagram.
Within the health care context, this diagram is often used to
conduct root-cause analysis of sentinel events as required by the
Joint Commission. A Pareto chart is a bar graph used to identify
and separate major and minor problems. It is based on the
Pareto Principle, which posits that, for many events, 20 percent
of problems pose 80 percent of the impact. This chart orders
categories according to frequency in descending order from left
to right and is used to determine priorities in problem solving.
In addition to tools that generate ideas, tools are available to
gather data in both time- and labor-efficient fashions. Data
gathering can be accomplished using forms, check sheets,
surveys, questionnaires, written inventories, or computer
screens with database or spreadsheet applications. Data can be
gathered concurrently (i.e., at the same time the activity occurs)
or retrospectively (i.e., looking backward at activity), with a
time limit set for the period in which data are collected. The
decision about which tool to employ rests on issues of whether a
given project is time sensitive, cost sensitive, or both.
Once data are gathered, one must determine how to display it.
Frequently used methods include bar graphs, histograms, pie

charts, line graphs, control charts, and scatter diagrams. A bar
graph demonstrates the frequency of data through the use of
horizontal and vertical axes. Typically, the horizontal axis, or
x-axis, shows discrete categories; the vertical axis, or y-axis,
shows the number or frequency, as seen in Figure 7-5. A
histogram is similar to a bar graph, containing both the x- and
y-axes, with the exception that it can display data
proportionally. This proportionality is shown through the use of
continuous intervals for categories on the vertical axis, as seen
in Figure 7-6. Histograms are chosen over bar graphs when
trying to identify problems or changes in a system or process, or
where large amounts of continuous data are difficult to interpret
in lists or other nongraphic forms. A pie chart is a graph used to
show relationships to the whole, or how each part contributes to
the total product or process. The frequency of data is shown
through the use of a circle drawn and divided into sections that
correspond to the frequency in each category. The 360 degrees
of the circle, or pie, represent the total, or 100 percent. The
“slices” of the pie are the proportions to each component's
percentage of the whole. A pie chart is seen in Figure 7-7. A
line graph uses lines to represent data in numerical form, as
seen in Figure 7-8. These graphs can show a process or progress
over time, with several sets of data displayed concurrently in a
graph to show relationships. A control chart is a graph with
statistically generated upper and lower control limits used to
measure key processes over time. Control charts focus attention
on a variation in the process and help a team determine whether
a variation is normal or the result of special circumstances. An
example of a control chart is shown in Figure 7-9. A scatter
diagram is a graph that shows the relationship between two
variables and is often used as the first step in regression
analysis. The graph pairs numerical data, with one variable in
each axis, to help identify a relationship. An example is shown
in Figure 7-10.
Figure 7-5 | Bar graph
Figure 7-6 | Histogram

Deciding which tool to employ is often driven by determining
the purpose behind an assignment, question, or project (e.g., is
it to analyze, compare, or plan?) and how best to display the
data. By becoming familiar with the tools and learning what
they are used for, the learner is better able to reach these
decisions. The tools, for the most part, can be useful for both
planning and organizing, whether drawn by hand or using
automated means via a computer or template. For example, in
the study stage of a project, one may choose to employ a cause-
and-effect diagram to help sort the information into categories.
Whereas textbooks display neatly drawn diagrams with
examples of completed projects, it is sometimes beneficial to
use the tools oneself as a means to understand how to better
choose from among them. Drawing diagrams, graphs, or charts
by hand after generating ideas is a common way to organize
thoughts. These diagrams, graphs, or charts can be changed
repeatedly as the process progresses and formalized by
automated means.
Applications Data quality refers to more than just the
“correctness” of data. Inherent in the concept of quality data is
that data must be comprehensive, current, relevant, accurate,
complete, legible, timely, and appropriate. To accomplish this,
data must be viewed from prospective, concurrent, and
retrospective approaches. Using the prospective approach,
appropriate protocols and procedures for capturing required data
must be established before a patient is even treated. For
example, protocols regarding what data should be captured
during preregistration and at the time of patient admission, who
is responsible for capturing the data, and what procedures must
be employed should all be coordinated in advance. Such
protocols often involve the use of minimum data sets, a concept
discussed in detail in Chapter 10, “Database Management.” The
concurrent approach to data viewing allows for the ability to
clarify, verify, and edit data while the patient receives
treatment. The concurrent approach is most practical when the
patient receives treatment over time, as in an inpatient setting

or during a nursinghome stay. The retrospective approach to
data viewing applies to a review of all data after the fact,
allowing for editing where necessary and the completion of the
coding and billing processes.
Just as important as putting the processes and procedures in
place is determining what to do with the data that have been
captured. Originally, the focus rested on internal examination of
data, such as a hospital tracking the number of patients who had
a certain diagnosis during a certain window of time. Reporting
requirements to public health agencies and accrediting bodies
gradually emerged, along with the needs of third-party payers to
verify the provision of services for reimbursement purposes.
Researchers began to demand quality data for studies, as did
health care administrators and policy makers who compare costs
associated with specific diseases. As a result of these demands
for quality, the scope and amount of data required for
comparison and study have also increased.
Figure 7-7 | Pie chart
Figure 7-8 | Line graph
Figure 7-9 | Control chart
During the most recent decade, the discussion of data quality
has focused on how to use data to improve patient care and
safety. One way to improve care and safety is through careful
and constant observation. This observation activity involves the
use of the quality monitoring cycle PDSA, the steps of which
are described in Figure 7-11. The quality monitoring cycle uses
data to recognize patterns and trends. This recognition serves as
the connection between raw data and real-life circumstances,
thereby turning data into meaningful information.
A second way to improve patient care and safety using
observation is through benchmarking. Benchmarking is the
process of comparing outcomes with those of an acknowledged
superior performer. Utilizing this definition, outcomes refers to
the changes or end results, whether positive or negative, that
can be attributed to the task at hand (i.e., the delivery of health
care). For example, outcomes could include changes in health

status, knowledge, behavior, or satisfaction. The usefulness of
benchmarking, however, extends beyond the mere comparison
of outcomes. Rather, it helps people and organizations to learn
how the superior performer achieved its goals and to determine
how to incorporate those methods into operational practice.
Within the data quality context, benchmarking has most recently
involved the collection of core measurements—standardized
sets of valid, reliable, and evidence-based measures. These
measures are used in benchmarking as a way to determine
whether a health care institution meets the standards of superior
performance. For example, a surgical prevention measure may
require administration of prophylactic antibiotics one hour prior
to surgery as a means to reduce postoperative infections. A
health care institution may examine its own records to
determine the number of times it meets this standard compared
to the number of surgeries performed.
Benchmarking has often been used in conjunction with the
quality improvement model in the health care context. Using the
quality improvement model, a problem or process is chosen for
study, data are collected to measure the problem or process,
data are assessed, and a method for improvement is developed.
It is at the data assessment level that benchmarking comes into
play. Once the state of the problem or process is assessed using
the appropriate data, the health care provider compares itself to
the benchmarked competitor and decides the “what and how” of
incorporating the competitor's methods into its own operational
practice. Within the patient safety context, common areas of
focus for error reduction have included medication prescribing,
dispensing, administering, and monitoring; exposures to
communicable diseases and bodily fluids; and patient injuries.
A third way to improve patient care and safety is by the
pressure exerted from the issuance of quality indicator (QI)
reports. QI reports originally developed as an outgrowth of
reporting requirements to public health agencies. For example,
nursing homes have submitted a tremendous volume of data to
CMS since 1996 through the use of the Minimum Data Set

(MDS). CMS in turn has used this data to develop both public
and nonpublic reports on the quality of care in nursing homes.
Figure 7-10 | Scatter diagram
The public report, entitled Nursing Home Compare, currently
focuses on 15 quality measures.12 Because virtually every
nursing home in the United States accepts patients whose care is
funded by CMS, each nursing home receives a Nursing Home
Compare report from CMS indicating its performance in relation
to the quality measures. The Nursing Home Compare report also
compares the data from an individual nursing home against
national and state averages. Of the 15 measures, 12 are
considered long-term measures and 3 are short-stay measures.
The observation (or “look back”) time varies for each measure,
lasting 7, 14, or 30 days. Regulations currently require that an
MDS assessment be performed during admission, quarterly,
annually, and whenever a resident experiences a change in
status. Using this report, the nursing home is able to gauge its
performance with regard to the 15 quality measures. More
significantly, the Nursing Home Compare reports are available
to the public over the Internet. This enables consumers to make
more informed comparisons when choosing a nursing home. It
also permits public scrutiny of nursing homes, which may result
in improved patient care. The reports to the public are updated
quarterly.
Other information that is made available to the public at the
Nursing Home Compare Web site is compiled from the CMS
Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting (OSCAR) database.
This very comprehensive report includes nursing home
characteristics, citations issued during the three most recent
state inspections, and recent complaint investigations. The
information is a combination of that reported by the nursing
home through the survey and that of the state survey agencies
compiled during on-site evaluations. The OSCAR data are
updated on a monthly basis but may not reflect the most recent
survey results.
The nonpublic report provides data on 24 performance

measures to state public health agencies. These agencies use the
data to specify deficiencies that require investigation during on-
site inspections. Comparisons are made during the on-site
inspection, and quality indicator reports are developed. State
agencies issue these QI reports to the nursing homes in their
respective states. The facilities then have the ability to gauge
their performance against state averages and, where appropriate,
introduce measures to improve the quality of patient care.
Figure 7-11 | The PDSA cycle model
In some states, the QI reports issued to nursing homes are also
made available to the public over the Internet.
The concept of using quality indicator reports has followed a
slow process to fruition. Because the reports are only as
accurate as the data collected, some reports have been criticized
as not reflecting the actual quality of care delivered in a given
institution. This perceived lack of correlation has highlighted
the need to assure the recording and transmission of quality
data, because those data may serve as a representation to the
public of the quality of care at a given institution. The use of QI
reports does not appear to abate, though; CMS now issues
similar QI reports for the hospital and home health industries.
Table 7-5 | Additional HQA Measures
Heart Attack (Acute Myocardial Infarction)
• Thrombolytic agent received within 30 minutes
• Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) received within
120 minutes of hospital arrival (previously Percutaneous
Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty)
• Adult smoking cessation advice/counseling
Heart Failure
• Discharge instructions
Pneumonia
• Blood culture performed prior to first antibiotic received in

hospital
• Appropriate initial antibiotic selection
Surgical Infection Prevention
• Prophylactic antibiotic received within one hour prior to
surgical incision
• Prophylactic antibiotic discontinued within 24 hours after
surgery end time
Source: Information adapted from Hospital Compare,
http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov.
Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov.
The Hospital Compare report currently reports on four core
measures: heart attack (acute myocardial infarction, or AMI),
heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical infection prevention.
Measures exist for each condition that represent the best
practices for treatment. The performance rate for a particular
facility is reported, along with comparisons to state and national
averages. There is also a checklist for the consumer to use to
gather and document comparative information. This information
is available on the Hospital Compare Web site.13
The requirement for reporting data is one of the components
of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), Section 501(b),14 which
established the incentive payment program for eligible acute
care hospitals to report on an initial set of 10 quality
performance measures, known at the “starter set,” and to agree
to have their data publicly displayed. This new requirement
became effective with patient discharges beginning in 2004.
These are the same measures collected by the JC for
participation in their accreditation programs as well as the
voluntary reporting effort established by the Hospital Quality
Alliance (HQA), a collaboration that includes CMS, the
American Hospital Association, the Federation of American
Hospitals, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

This collaboration received the support of numerous public and
private organizations, including the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, the Joint Commission, the National
Quality Forum, the American Medical Association, the
American Nurses Association, the National Association of
Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, the Consumer-
Purchaser Disclosure Project, the AFL-CIO, the AARP, and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Additional measures exist for which hospitals may submit
data and elect the option of displaying this data to the public on
the Hospital Compare Web site. Some of these additional
measures are listed in Table 7-5. Four core measures have been
identified as the leading causes of hospitalization or for
extending the length of stay. Heart attack and heart failure are
common causes of admission for patients aged 65 or older, and
these present high rates for morbidity and mortality. The
measures are evidence based and represent best practices for
treatment. One of the AMI measures is the documentation of the
administration of aspirin within 24 hours of the patient's arrival
at the hospital. Another measure relating to AMI is the
documentation of the prescription of aspirin at discharge. For
both sets of core measures with patients who have a history of
smoking, there is the additional requirement that they be given
smoking cessation advice or counseling. The core measure for
pneumonia also includes a requirement for smoking cessation
advice or counseling and includes other measures related to the
appropriate selection and timing of the administration of
antibiotics. Another measure requires the documentation of
patient screenings for pneumococcal vaccine status and the
administration of the vaccine prior to discharge, if appropriate.
Table 7-6 | Selected Surgeries
Colon surgery
Hip and knee arthroplasty
Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy
Cardiac surgery (including coronary artery bypass grafts
[CABG] and vascular surgery)

The core measures for surgical infection prevention represent
the best practices for the prevention of infection after selected
surgeries, as listed in Table 7-6. The evidence-based measures
indicate that the best practices for the prevention of infections
after these procedures are related to the timing of the
administration of antibiotics and the avoidance of prolonged
administration of prophylaxis with antibiotics. One core
measure requires the documentation of the prophylactic
antibiotic within one hour of surgery, with another measure
requiring documentation that the prophylactic antibiotic be
discontinued within 24 hours after surgery.
Table 7-7 | Home Health Outcome and Assessment Information
Set
Measures related to improvement in getting around
• Patients who get better at walking and moving around
• Patients who get better at getting in and out of bed
• Patients who have less pain when moving around
Measures related to meeting the patient's activities of daily
living
• Patients whose bladder control improves
• Patients who get better at bathing
• Patients who get better at taking their medicines correctly
(by mouth)
• Patients who are short of breath less often
Measures related to patient medical emergencies
• Patients who have to be admitted to the hospital
• Patients who need urgent, unplanned medical care
Measures related to living at home after an episode of home
health care ends
• Patients who stay at home after an episode of home health
care ends

Source: Information adapted from Home Health Compare,
http://www.medicare.gov/homehealthcompare
Courtesy of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
www.cms.hhs.gov.
Home health data went public with the Home Health Quality
Initiative (HHQI), which started publishing data in the spring of
2003. The Home Health Compare report examines 10 quality
measures related to outcomes of an episode or service (see
Table 7-7). Three of the measures are related to improvement in
mobility; four measures are related to meeting the patient's
activities of daily living, such as improvement in bladder
control and the ability to take medicines correctly; two
measures are related to patient medical emergencies, such as the
percentage of patients who had to be admitted to the hospital
and needed urgent, unplanned medical care; and one measure
indicates the percentage of patients who remain at home after
the episode of home health care ends. The information collected
is called the Home Health Outcome and Assessment Information
Set (OASIS). The public information is updated monthly, but
there is a two- to three-month data lag time.
Quality indicator reports have begun to take a foothold at the
state level, perhaps forecasting a trend toward wider use. For
example, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Illinois each require
hospitals to report data concerning hospital-acquired or
nosocomial infections to the state health department.15 This
reporting allows not only for the tracking of trends related to
antibiotic-resistant microbes but also for the development of
quality indicators related to infection rates that are disseminated
to the public via the Internet. Public demand for this
information has increased, so that patients may make informed
choices when selecting health care facilities; additionally, this
information has been somewhat instrumental in passing
legislation for public reporting of statistical and study results.
Pennsylvania was the first state to release reports to the
public, beginning with information about four types of
hospitalacquired infections in 2004. The hospitals were required

to submit data to the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost
Containment Council (PHC4). The reporting includes four types
of hospital-acquired infections, three surgical site infection
categories, Foley catheterassociated urinary tract infections,
ventilator-associated pneumonia, and central-line associated
bloodstream infections. In 2006, the PHC4 began requiring
hospitals to submit data on all hospital-acquired infections. The
intent is to encourage health care facilities to take appropriate
actions to decrease the risks of infection. Making information
available to the public encourages facilities to direct resources
toward improving or maintaining their statistical reports on
infections.
One of the driving forces behind the passage of the legislation
in Missouri was a father whose adolescent son developed an
infection following a sledding accident and resultant fractured
arm. The infection led to osteomyelitis and required six
subsequent surgical procedures and five months of drug
treatment, forcing the young man to miss school, a season of
sports, and a summer lifeguarding job. The purpose of the
legislation was not to be punitive but to spur hospitals to reduce
the incidence of infection. The Missouri Nosocomial Infection
Control Act of 2004 includes hospitals, ambulatory surgery
centers, and other facilities that have procedures for monitoring
compliance with infection-control regulations and standards.
Physician offices are exempt. This information will also be
available for the licensing of hospitals and ambulatory surgical
centers in Missouri at a future date.
Mandatory reporting of infections is a part of the Illinois
Hospital Report Card Act. Like Missouri, Illinois requires
reporting of nosocomial infections related to Class I surgical
site infections, central-line-related bloodstream infections, and
ventilator-associated pneumonia. Other states, including
Florida, New York, and Virginia, have since joined this trend to
require hospitals to disclose or report information about
infection rates to federal or state authorities.16 These
requirements center upon nosocomial infections and may

include tracking and reporting data concerning surgical site
infections, infections associated with catheters, and pneumonia
in patients on ventilators.
Reports are also available to the public that rate hospitals,
physicians, and nursing homes. Some use Medicare Provider
Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) data, which are composed of
data from the Medicare population that are reported from claims
data submitted by health care facilities. One organization,
HealthGrades.com, uses MEDPAR data to form parts of
comparison reports that are made available to the public.
Another organization, the Leapfroggroup.org, uses data that are
submitted voluntarily by health care organizations. One
advantage offered by these data is that they are derived from a
wide variety of organizations and include multiple categories of
third-party payers, as opposed to data collected from only
Medicare claims. Still other reports are issued as rankings by
benchmarking organizations to which hospitals and other health
care delivery systems may subscribe. One quality rating system
for health care that uses surveys is available from the Consumer
Checkbook, a nonprofit consumer information and service
resource. The results of physician surveys that rank facilities by
“desirability” ratings, risk-adjusted mortality figures, and
adverse outcomes for several surgical procedures is available on
a subscription basis for consumers; however, the rankings are a
matter of physician opinion. Still other reports—such as those
generated by WebMD (part of WebMD Health), a leading
provider of health information services to consumers,
physicians, and health care professionals— are only available to
members who participate.
One newer application related to improving patient care and
reducing errors, particularly with regard to medication, is the
development of the personal health record (PHR). As patients
and consumers become better informed of the expected
outcomes of illnesses, the modalities of treatment, and the
interactions of medications, they are taking more responsibility
for keeping their own records. Through the promotion and use

of patient PHRs, health care providers are offered the
opportunity to compare their records against those of their
patients, thereby leading to the possibility of improved
consistency of data between both parties. This, in turn, can lead
to a decrease in the risk of errors and complications from
current treatments and medications; health care providers are
able to assist patients in recalling all historical information
accurately when they provide information to providers at
various facilities.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT AND RISK
MANAGEMENT
Two areas that relate to data quality and quality patient care are
performance improvement and risk management. Similar to
statistics and research, both performance improvement and risk
management rely upon data that are collected, stored, and
retrieved by automated methods. Some data collection, however,
may still be abstracted from open or closed health care records,
either in paper or electronic versions. Performance improvement
and risk management are not limited to acute care facilities but
are integral parts of the quality management programs within all
types of health care systems, such as skilled nursing facilities
(SNFs); home health agencies; and ambulatory, long-term, and
rehabilitation facilities.
Performance Improvement
Performance improvement is a clinical function that focuses on
how to improve patient care. It is related to database
management in that the trend is toward the use of automated
data to measure the performance of a health care provider or
institution. The HIM professional may be involved in collecting
data and compiling reports, as well as provide trending reports.
Strong coding and analytical skills, along with database
management skills, are essential to provide the appropriate data
for effective performance activities.
Fundamental to the concept of performance improvement is
the review of a given process, including a determination of how
well that process should function. During the review activity, it

is important to understand who is affected by the process (e.g.,
patients and staff), what product is produced by the process
(e.g., quality health care), and what is not working with regard
to the current process. Some of this understanding can be gained
through the extraction of data from clinical data repositories,
data warehouses, and data marts.
It is often helpful to use a benchmarking methodology for
performance improvement. Benchmarking, as previously
discussed, is the process of comparing outcomes with those of
an acknowledged superior performer as a means to improve
performance. Data for benchmarking are available from many
agencies, as described earlier in this chapter.
To compare its performance with those of other organizations,
the health care organization can utilize the data found in
external databases. As stated in Chapter 8, “Health Statistics,”
health care data are reported to local, state, and federal
government agencies pursuant to legal requirements. In
addition, some health care organizations voluntarily report data
to nongovernmental institutions pursuant to access/participation
agreements. These data are collected and maintained under
recognized standards and guidelines that govern form and
content.
Within the context of accreditation, the most influential
performance improvement method of recent years has been the
ORYX Initiative of the Joint Commission. The goal of the
ORYX Initiative is to “provide a continuous, data-driven
accreditation process that focuses on the actual results of care
(performance measurement) and is more comprehensive and
valuable to all stakeholders.”17 Under the ORYX Initiative,
performance data are defined, collected, analyzed, transmitted,
reported, and used to examine a health care organization's
internal performance over time and to compare a health care
organization's performance with others. Those data serve as part
of the information used by the Joint Commission to determine
the accreditation status of health care organizations.
To assess its internal performance under ORYX, a health care

organization would collect and aggregate its own data to
measure patient outcomes. For example, an organization could
aggregate data collected from similar patients and analyze them
to determine whether certain treatment options are more
effective than others. This analysis could further indicate if the
effectiveness of the treatment options has varied over time.
From this analysis, the organization could determine the need
for additional improvement. Data used for comparisons
concerning the ORYX initiative are available to the public
through the JC Web site (under “Quality Check”). Reports are
available for hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies,
mental health facilities, HMOs, and outpatient services that are
accredited by the Joint Commission.
Core measures under ORYX support the integration of
outcome data and other performance measurements into the
accreditation process. The Joint Commission has developed
specific core performance measures that can be applied across
health care accreditation programs. These core performance
measures are developed using precisely defined data elements,
calculation algorithms, and standardized data collection
protocols based on uniform medical language. These measures
have been communicated to health care organizations for
embedding in their respective databases, and data about these
measures are to be reported to the Joint Commission on a
quarterly basis.18 At this time, three core measures must be
reported to the Joint Commission, with additional core measures
scheduled for reporting over the next few years.19
Performance improvement as a continuous process has been a
part of the Joint Commission reviews since the early 1990s.
Prior to then, requirements for quality assessment focused on
outcomes and processes; some of these reviews of clinical
processes must still be conducted. Documentation review is one
type of peer review that has changed its requirements, moving
from a review of a designated number of elements—in a
specified number of records in monthly and quarterly cycles—to
a focused review based on periodic sampling. This review is

essential to ensure that the health care record accurately reflects
the care provided to the patient and also for safety and quality
of care, as well as reimbursement and compliance issues. Health
information management professionals usually conduct these
documentation reviews, compile the data, and report the results
to the appropriate committee or department responsible for
initiating corrective action or improvement. Study results are
reported to the medical staff as defined in the medical staff
bylaws and a hospital's performance improvement plan.
Deficiencies in documentation that become discipline issues are
also included in the physician's record for re-credentialing
considerations. Although the format for review and criteria may
have changed, the responsibility still remains with the medical
staff. The involvement and leadership of the medical staff in
these activities is crucial to the success of the performance
improvement program.
Physician involvement in other performance activities, such
as surgical case review, medication usage review, blood and
blood component review, mortality review, and infection
control, are often accomplished by committees composed of
medical staff, with assistance in data collection and abstraction
provided by members of the Health Information Management
and Quality Assurance staff. The Joint Commission specifies
that these activities be consistent, timely, defensible, balanced,
useful, and ongoing. The processes need to be defined clearly,
with the participants and their roles, design methods, and
criteria all identified. Criteria are the standards upon which
judgments can be made or the expected level(s) of achievement.
Criteria are described by the JC as the specifications against
which performance or quality may be compared.
Within the public health context, the most respected
performance improvement initiative is the Comprehensive
Assessment for Tracking Community Health (CATCH).20
Developed by the University of South Florida and supported by
multiple public and private entities, CATCH collects, organizes,
analyzes, prioritizes, and reports data on over 250 health and

social indicators on a local community level. These data are
gathered from hospitals; local, state, and federal government
agencies; and national health care groups. Data are also
gathered from door-to-door and mail-in surveys. These data are
stored in a data warehouse, then mined and disseminated to
Florida communities in the form of indicators of community
health. This information brings greater awareness to
communities and allows them to focus on initiatives, such as
training and education, to improve the public's health.
Risk Management
Risk management is a nonclinical function that focuses on how
to reduce medical, financial, and legal risk to an organization.
This reduction is tied to the definition of risk: the estimate of
probability of loss from a given event upon the operational or
financial performance of an organization. Understanding the
universe of probable events, the strategies employed to mitigate
and minimize the effects of each of these events, and how to
contain negative consequences is central to managing risk.
Traditionally, risk management dealt with assessing patient
outcomes and events, writing incident reports, and reviewing
past events to determine the need for changes in policy and
procedure. An incident report refers to the documentation of an
adverse incident, describing the time, date, and place of
occurrence; the incident itself; the condition of the subject of
the incident; statements or observations of witnesses; and any
responsible action taken by the health care provider or
organization. Adverse incidents may include accidents or
medical errors that result in personal injury or loss of property.
Incident reports are generally protected by the work-product
privilege, meaning that they need not be released in response to
a litigation request. More information about the work-product
privilege can be found in Chapter 3, “Legal Issues.” Traditional
statistical methods were employed to measure risk, and these
statistics were reported to higher management levels and boards
of directors. Risk management still uses these processes but
now includes more focus on database management, primarily in

two areas: using data in an automated fashion to measure a
health care institution's risk, and identifying the risk inherent
with databases that contain enormous amounts of sensitive data.
Automated databases can be powerful tools in risk
management. Because a database is a structured collection of
data on multiple entities and their relationships, often arranged
for ease and speed of retrieval, it is an ideal method for storing
risk management data. The traditional approach of storing
paper-based incident reports in a file cabinet did not provide a
mechanism for sophisticated information searches, which can be
performed in a database format with ease. Using a common and
controlled database approach, data can be added and modified
over time, thereby providing end users the data needed to
perform their jobs as efficiently as possible. With the advent of
sophisticated software applications and techniques such as data
mining, databases can be searched for risk patterns that may be
difficult to detect using traditional statistical methods. Once
discovered, these data can be analyzed to predict the probability
of future occurrences and to determine how to proceed with
action, including mitigation efforts. This effort can lead to more
effective loss prevention and reduction programs.
The incident report is still an integral component of any loss
prevention program. This report can be prepared and submitted
electronically in many facilities, although the paper version is
usually still available. The data from the paper report may then
be abstracted to facilitate data storage and documentation
requirements. Once abstracted, the data can be analyzed to
determine approaches to reduce risk in the future. An example
of this analysis can be seen in Figure 7-12. A trend has emerged
toward developing specialized reports, such as medication and
surgical occurrence reports. Other occurrences that
organizations often require to be reported to the risk manager
are falls, lost property, IV complications, mislabeled lab
specimens, and against medical advice discharges. Management
of these types of occurrences is integral to an effective loss
prevention program. In addition, risk managers are involved in

investigations coordinated with clinical engineering to comply
with the federal Safe Medical Devices Act, safety inspections
mandated by the Joint Commission, and COBRA investigations.
Figure 7-12 | Incident Report Data
Risk management also involves claims management; risk
managers often act as liaison to a health care organization's
attorneys. This may include conducting record reviews,
arranging depositions, and providing the necessary
documentation for claims investigations. The risk manager may
also participate in interviews with professional and other staff
related to adverse occurrences.
HIPAA
The Security Rule requires a risk analysis of electronically
protected health information.
Risk management and database management also intersect
with regard to the clinical data stored in automated systems,
such as an electronic health record. The security management
process standards (Security Rule) issued pursuant to the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) require a
covered entity to perform a risk analysis to determine security
risks and implement standards to reduce risks and
vulnerabilities to electronic protected health information.21
Such security risks may include breaches to the confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of the electronic protected health
information. The standards of the Security Rule do not specify
the approach for this analysis nor do they specify what security
measures should be implemented, allowing for flexibility by the
covered entity. The standards do require, however, that the
covered entity document its efforts, maintain this
documentation for six years, and provide review and
modification of the efforts on a regular basis.22
E-HIM
Security risks to electronic health information arise from both
technical and nontechnical sources.
Installing security measures such as access and integrity
controls are just the beginning of risk management efforts

relating to an EHR; non-technological risks also pose threats.
For example, access and security controls installed at the
technological level can help prevent unauthorized access to
sensitive patient information, and, on a non-technological level,
in-service education programs can raise employee awareness
about handling the same information. Similarly, complete and
accurate information in the EHR can support the claims
management function, serve as the basis of a defense in a
lawsuit, and assist in promoting safety education programs—all
areas that are central to a successful risk management program.
With the use of data mining techniques, the EHR can be
searched to assist in analyzing different areas of a health care
delivery system, such as obstetrics, psychiatry, anesthesia, and
surgery, to determine if they carry higher levels of risk. Finally,
the EHR has been helpful in the risk management context
through analyzing the occurrence of medication errors,
inconsistent data entries, and contradictions in data.
Another part of an effective risk management program is
Sentinel Event Review, a requirement of the Joint Commission
since 1998. A sentinel event is an unexpected occurrence
involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or
other risks thereof; serious injury includes loss of limb or limb
function. The standards that relate specifically to the
management of sentinel events are found in the Improving
Organization Performance section of the JC accreditation
manual. Organizations are required to establish mechanisms to
identify, report, and manage these events. Organizations are
also required to conduct a root-cause analysis to identify the
cause of the event and should include a clinical as well as an
administrative review. Examples of sentinel events that must be
reviewed include significant medication errors, significant
adverse drug reactions, confirmed transfusion reactions, and
surgery on the wrong patient or wrong body part. Infant
abduction or the discharge of an infant to the wrong family are
also considered sentinel events.
Facilities are encouraged but not required to report sentinel

events to the JC within 45 days of the event. If a facility
chooses not to report the event and a family member makes the
JC aware, or the JCAHO becomes aware by other means, the JC
will communicate to the facility the requirement to submit the
findings of the root-cause analysis and action plans. Failure to
do so within the specified time frame could result in placing the
organization on Accreditation Watch status until the response is
received and the protocol approved. An on-site review will not
occur unless the JC deems it necessary due to a potential threat
to patient health or safety or if there appears to be significant
noncompliance with the Joint Commission standards.
Although risk management has already moved from a
traditional focus to one that includes database management, it is
evolving even further in the new century. In view of the many
external factors that influence health care organizations,
particularly those beyond the organization's control, a new
concept has been applied to risk management: enterprise risk
management. Enterprise risk management (ERM) refers to the
function of analyzing and evaluating all of the risks that
confront an organization, not just the legal, financial, and
medical risks that are traditionally considered. These additional
risks include the threat of terrorism and its impact on
professionals, patients, and the community; the heightened
emphasis on corporate governance and compliance with statutes,
regulations, and ethical standards; the increased presence of
oversight authorities over business practices; the expanded
awareness of patients and the public in general to medical and
medication errors; the shortage of qualified staff in certain
health care professions or in certain geographic regions; and the
effect of the economy in general and in specific local regions
upon the demand for unreimbursed health care. ERM considers
these risks, and others not listed here, in combination and
determines how they affect the health care organization's
strategic plan and overall health. ERM also considers risks in
the context of the opportunities they may present, with the goal
of exploring how those risks may be exploited to gain a

competitive advantage.
A feature central to ERM is the focus on interrelationships
and interdependencies. Instead of viewing risks in isolation and
organizational departments as separate entities, ERM examines
risks together across departmental lines. ERM also examines
risks across activities and functions, factoring in how they
interplay. Furthermore, ERM examines the health care
organization's relationship with external entities, sometimes
resulting in a collaborative regional effort to mitigate and
control loss. Such an approach is particularly applicable to
emergency preparedness planning, because it permits the risk
manager to examine the organization's infrastructure and
estimate how it will be affected by a catastrophic event. Such a
proactive approach may well reduce costs to the health care
organization, in both financial terms and how well the
organization accomplishes its mission. As ERM increases in
acceptance, its use in the health care industry should also
increase.
One additional way in which risk management is addressing
the 21st century is in its relationship with social media. Given
that patient use of social media is becoming more common,
health care providers have identified instances where their
reputations were called into question publicly by patients
complaining about the quality of care they received. Those
statements that place the health care provider in a negative light
pose risk to the health care provider's reputation, not only with
that patient but also with all who may encounter the negative
statements in social media. Left unchecked, these statements not
only harm reputations but also may influence potential patients
to avoid using the health care provider for any future care. A
reduction in potential patient load may have serious financial
consequences for the health care provider. For these reasons,
some risk managers now include social media as part of their
responsibilities.
UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT
Utilization management refers to a combination of planned

functions directed to patients in a health care facility or setting
that includes prudent use of resources, appropriate treatment
management, and early comprehensive discharge planning for
continuation of care. The process uses established criteria as
specified in the organization's utilization review plan.
Utilization review is the clinical review of the appropriateness
of admission and planned use of resources, that can be and often
is initiated prior to admission and conducted at specific time
frames as defined in an organization's utilization review plan.
This review involves the process of comparing pre-established
criteria against the health care services to be provided to the
patient to determine whether the care is necessary. To
understand how utilization management differs from
performance improvement and risk management, see Table 7-8.
Efforts at utilization management began in the 1950s and
were employed at facilities that had frequent bed shortages as a
way to allocate space to patients who demonstrated the greatest
need. Utilization management first became mandatory in 1965
with the passage of the federal law establishing the Medicare
program. The focus of the legislation at that time was on
reducing the patient's length of stay (LOS) in an effort to
control the rising costs of health care. Medical evaluation
studies were also part of the review process that focused on
improving the quality of patient care. Physician involvement
was central to the process and continues to this day, although
many changes in the procedures employed have taken place
through the years.
Table 7-8 | Contrasts between Performance Improvement, Risk
Management, and Utilization Management
Performance improvement
Risk management
Utilization management
Focus

Improve patient care (clinical)
Reduce risk and liability (non-clinical)
Use resources wisely (clinical)
Approach
Review of a process
Review of an adverse event
Compare patient data against preestablished criteria
Methods used
Benchmarking Data comparisons ORYX Initiative CATCH
Incident report analysis Sentinel event review
Evidence-based guidelines Medical necessity review
Driver
Accrediting agencies, regulatory bodies
Liability insurers
Third-party payers, QIOs
During the 1970s, utilization management became a required
component of JC accreditation standards as well as a
requirement for participation in the Medicaid reimbursement
program. Further legislation in 1972 led to the formation of
Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs), groups
tasked with monitoring the appropriateness and quality of
outcomes. In 1977, new legislation known as the Utilization
Review Act defined the review process by requiring hospitals to

conduct continued-stay reviews for medical necessity and the
appropriateness of Medicare and Medicaid inpatient
hospitalizations. The Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA), now called Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, began operation, charged with managing the Medicare
and Medicaid programs that had previously been the
responsibility of the Social Security Administration.
Simultaneously, Congress passed fraud and abuse legislation to
enable enforcement of the provisions of the act.
With enactment of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act (TEFRA) in 1982, the titles of these PSROs changed to Peer
Review Organizations (PROs). TEFRA also established the first
Medicare prospective payment system (PPS), which was
implemented the following year. Using PPS, reimbursement was
no longer based on a per diem rate, but on a predetermined rate
based on the discharge diagnosis in relation to diagnosis-related
groups (DRGs). More information concerning DRGs can be
found in Chapter 6, “Nomenclatures and Classification
Systems,” and Chapter 16, “Reimbursement Methodologies.”
TEFRA's changes placed additional focus on managing the
length of stay through early and effective discharge planning.
While these changes in the reporting and scope of utilization
management occurred, the focus continued to be directed toward
managing the cost of health care and assuring the best level of
quality health care possible. CMS changed the PRO designation
to Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) as a part of the
“7th Scope of Work” (SOW), a document that updates the
direction and focus of the organization.23
By the 1990s, the process of determining medical necessity
expanded beyond the beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid to
include the efforts of many managed care and group health
insurance plans. Precertification for hospital admissions and
surgical procedures became requirements of many of these
private entities. In addition, some plans required authorization
from primary care physicians before treatment in emergency
care centers in nonemergency circumstances would be

reimbursed as well as preauthorization for diagnostic
radiological procedures.
Utilization review has evolved in the 21st century to
incorporate evidence-based guidelines as part of the screening
process. Several private companies, such as Milliman and
McKesson (InterQual), have published evidence-based
guidelines that are widely used in the health care field. The
guidelines may be used at the time of preadmission, admission,
and continued stay or concurrent review, as well as during
discharge planning. Some are based on the level of illness and
the patient services required, whereas others focus on
ambulatory care, observation status, inpatient and surgical care,
general recovery, home care, and chronic care.
Complying with the changing aspects of utilization review has
been a challenge for many health care professionals. Case
management refers to the ongoing review of patient care in
various health care settings related to assuring the medical
necessity of the encounter and the appropriateness of the
clinical services provided. Case managers, also known as
utilization coordinators, are frequently nurses or health
information managers with responsibility for managing the
review process and coordinating the patient's care with
physicians, nurses, and other allied health professionals. In
many settings, the case management function is organized into a
department and may also include social workers and clerical
assistants to help with communication and coordination of the
review activities. Utilization management continues to be a
physician-centered function, though it is coordinated by case
managers. In large facilities, case managers may specialize in
specific areas, such as cardiology, orthopedics, or pediatrics; in
smaller facilities, case managers must be trained to facilitate the
variety of cases that the organization treats. Longterm care
facilities and home health services are also required to have an
established utilization management plan, although their
requirements differ. In all settings, the focus rests on medical
necessity and appropriate management of health care resources.

Figure 7-13 | Steps in the utilization review process
Utilization Review Process
The utilization review process consists of several steps or levels
of review; these are listed in Figure 7-13. The process may
begin with preadmission review, an element often required by
managed care organizations. Preadmission review is performed
prior to admission to the facility and operates to determine if
the admission or procedure/treatment plan is medically
necessary and appropriate for the setting. The case manager
uses criteria and screening software, and in some cases may
contact the patient's third-party payer, to confirm that the
admission is approved. If approval is deemed inappropriate, the
patient is directed to the appropriate level of care.
If preadmission review is not conducted, admission review is
performed at the time of admission or as soon as possible
thereafter to determine the medical necessity of the admission
and the appropriateness of the plan of treatment. Criteria are
also used here, as well as consultation with the patient's third-
party payer for authorization. An estimate of the length of stay
may be established during this step. If some services can't be
performed at the facility, plans are initiated for the appropriate
transfer. If any services are not deemed appropriate, the patient
is notified that responsibility for payment rests with the patient
and not with the third-party payer. The notification process is
defined by the patient's third-party payer and varies according
to the types of notifications that must be made to the patient.
Concurrent review, or continued-stay review, is similar to
preadmission and admission review. This review must assure
the continued medical necessity and appropriateness of care
being delivered to the patient. The review continues at specific
intervals that may be tied to the diagnosis or procedure, or
determined by the patient's third-party payer. Case managers
and health information management professionals are also
responsible for assuring that appropriate documentation exists
to support the decisions made regarding appropriateness of
admission and the continued necessity and appropriateness of

care. Facilities must have a Corporate Compliance Policy and
Plan that addresses the documentation of appropriateness of
admission and continued stay, and observation versus inpatient
documentation requirements.
Discharge planning is the process of coordinating the
activities employed to facilitate the patient's release from the
hospital when inpatient services are no longer needed.
Discharge planning can be initiated at any stage of the
utilization review process and evolves with the determination of
the patient's needs following discharge from the facility. When
discharge planning is initiated at preadmission, there may be
coordination with outside agencies, such as a home health
agency for continuation of care and delivery of durable medical
equipment to the patient's home. Other arrangements may
include transfer to another type of facility for continuation of
care. Social workers and other health care professionals may
become involved in the stages of discharge planning as well.
Changes in the patient's recovery can alter these plans and the
participation of the various agencies involved. Case managers
may coordinate this process; alternatively, separate discharge
planners might possess primary responsibility for this function.
Good communication and coordination are essential to efficient
discharge planning.
An important aspect of the discharge planning process is the
appropriate and clear documentation of the discharge status of
the patient in the patient's health record. CMS established this
requirement in 1998 as part of its post-acute transfer policy
(PACT). The discharge status is the description of the facility
or service—such as a skilled nursing facility, rehabilitation care
facility, or home health service—to which the patient will be
transferred upon discharge. This documentation is essential to
establish the appropriate patient status code that identifies
where the patient will be sent at the conclusion of a health
facility encounter or at the end of a billing cycle.
Often referred to as the Special 10 Transfer DRGs, the initial
PACT policy specified calculation for reimbursement for all

cases assigned to one of the 10 DRGs if the patient was
discharged to certain facilities that were considered to be
continuation of the episode of care. Patients discharged to home
or custodial care, such as residential care or assisted living
facilities, were not included in the calculation. In 2004, CMS
expanded the list of DRGs for which the transfer rule applies
from 10 to 29. The next year, CMS again expanded the list to
include 182 DRGs.
The patient status code is a two-digit code that is entered on
the UB-04 claim form, formerly known as the UB-92 claim
form, an example of which is seen in Figure 7-14. Examples of
patient discharge status codes are listed in Table 7-9. Omitting
the status code or submitting a claim with the incorrect status
code is a claim billing error and could result in rejection of the
claim and loss of revenue. The Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) has focused attention on those facilities that have high
error rates and may assess fines for failure to achieve
compliance with the requirement to document accurately. CMS
performs edits to assure compliance, comparing the patient
status code at discharge against the code used by the post-acute
care facility in its billing process. For example, if a patient is
transferred from an acute care facility to a skilled nursing
facility, the discharge code on the UB-04 should correlate with
the billing code from the SNF. This editing underscores the
importance of documentation in the record that clearly supports
the appropriate transfer status code. Facilities often conduct
random audits as a part of their Corporate Compliance Policy
and Plan, seeking to assure compliance and initiate corrective
measures as well as reduce the potential for revenue loss and
fines.
Case managers work closely with health information managers
to conduct various audits and reviews. The activities may
include audits for compliance with regard to observation versus
inpatient stays, premature discharges and subsequent
readmissions, and inpatient procedures performed in outpatient
settings. Familiarity with the current OIG Work Plan assists

case managers in designing the annual compliance activities
accordingly. The Work Plan is not limited to acute care
facilities but includes review of every facet of health care that
receives reimbursement from the Medicare and Medicaid
programs.
Although this discussion of the steps in the utilization review
process has focused on the acute care setting, utilization review
may vary in other settings. For example, utilization review in
home care and skilled nursing facilities is similar to the acute
care setting in design and process, but it uses criteria that are
more specific to the scope of the facility. Medical necessity and
appropriateness of the plan of care are central to utilization
review. Coordinators who work with the discharge planners or
case managers at acute care facilities usually conduct
preadmission reviews before the patient receives this new form
of treatment. The type and amount of service provided are
determined using specific criteria or in consultation with the
patient's third-party payer.
Utilization management remains central to the delivery of
patient care in the 21st century. Both accrediting and licensing
standards contain elements of utilization management with
which health care organizations must comply. For example, the
current JC standards specify that the provisions of ongoing care
are based on patient needs even when denial of payment has
been determined. The standard also includes provisions for the
patient's family to be involved in the decision-making process.
Similar requirements are present in the Condition for
Participation in the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement
programs.24 Utilization management will continue to evolve as
health care in the United States adapts to new changes.
Figure 7-14 | The UB-04 claim form
Table 7-9 | Patient Discharge Status Codes
Code
Description

Includes
01
Home or self-care
Home, assisted living, home IV without home care, retirement
home, foster care, home with home 02, homeless shelter,
residential care facility, jail, or prison. Also includes transfer to
OP services such as catheter labs, or for radiology purposes.
02
Short-term hospital for acute inpatient care
All acute hospitals except children's hospitals, VA hospitals,
psychiatric hospitals, and rehabilitation facilities.
03
Skilled nursing facility (SNF)
SNF with Medicare certification. Does not include SNF with
Medicaid only.
04
Intermediate care facility (ICF)
Facilities without Medicare or Medicaid certification. Includes
patients returning to Medicare facilities for custodial care.
05
Intermediate care facility (ICF)
Facilities without Medicare or Medicaid certification. Includes
patients returning to Medicare facilities for custodial care.
05
Another type of facility for inpatient care

Does not include SNFs, rehabilitation, or long-term hospitals
with specific status codes. Children's, cancer, or chemical
dependency hospitals are examples.
06
Home care
Home care services for skilled services. Does not include
durable medical equipment (DME) supplier, or home IV service
only.
07
AMA
Left against medical advice or discontinued care.
20
Expired
Expired.
30
Still a patient
Partial billing or interim bill.
43
Federal hospital
Any inpatient care at a VA facility (acute, psychiatric,
rehabilitation, or SNF).
50
Hospice

Hospice at home.
51
Hospice—medical facility
Hospice service in a hospital, SNF, or ICF.
61
Swing bed
SNF care in a swing bed arrangement.
62
IRF
Inpatient rehabilitation facility.
63
LTAC
Long-term acute care hospital.
64
Medicaid-only nursing facility
Nursing facility certified under Medicaid only, not Medicare.
65
Psychiatric hospital
Psychiatric hospital or distinct part or unit of a hospital.
66
Critical access hospitals
Hospitals with designation as critical access hospitals.

Source: Information from UB-92 Handbook for Hospital Billing,
2006 edition; American Medical Association and Patient Status
Code FAQs; National Uniform Billing Committee,
http://www.nubc.org.
CONCLUSION
As this chapter illustrates, quality health care management is
important to the entire health care system, affecting patients,
health care providers, governmental entities, accrediting bodies,
and third-party payers. Whether used to study clinical
outcomes, support performance improvement and risk
management efforts, or facilitate the utilization review process,
the ready availability and quality of data are essential. Quality
management is an equally integral part of health information
management. The data that are collected, abstracted, coded,
stored, and reported by health information management
professionals must be accurate and timely to meet the demands
of the health care professionals who use them for patient care
delivery, as well as the needs of others for billing, payment, and
health care research. Furthermore, the growing use of data to
improve patient safety, reduce risks, and improve the allocation
of health care dollars signals exciting developments for the
future of health care.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Because of its ability to provide objectivity, data are an
essential element used to measure the quality of patient care.
Data have been used to study the quality of patient care for over
a century, leading in part to the formation of accrediting
organizations that focus on improving patient care. Data
collected from the patient's health record are a crucial part of
any quality initiative in the health care field, including those at
the federal level. Private efforts to improve patient care have
measured the performance of care and service through data
collected at the health care provider level, with the HEDIS data
set serving as a model for managed care plans. The use of
quality monitoring cycles, benchmarking processes, and quality

indicator reports has expanded greatly in the last few decades,
helping those within the health care field to improve the
delivery of patient care and those outside the field to evaluate
care given. Two areas that rely greatly upon data quality are
performance improvement and risk management, with
performance improvement focusing on the review of clinical
processes as a way to improve the quality of patient care and
risk management focusing on the review of nonclinical
processes as a way to reduce medical, financial, and legal risk
to an organization. Both areas have received considerable
attention because of their potential to affect both the
administration and delivery of patient care. By contrast,
utilization management focuses on the appropriateness and
planned use of resources as an effort to control health care
costs. This focus has become central to the delivery of patient
care, as both accrediting and licensing standards require health
care organizations to comply with utilization management
requirements.
CASE STUDY
You are a quality analyst in a health information management
department appointed to lead a project team. Your team must
assess the problem with the documentation of the patient's
discharge disposition status in the health record. An increasing
number of errors have been reported and frustration among the
coders has risen. These coders claim that conflicting
information is often present in the record, requiring them to
spend an inordinate amount of time trying to obtain verification.
Coding productivity has been affected. How would you assess
the problem? Give examples of tools to use in a meeting, some
ideas that may develop, and a study mechanism.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Name the stages in which data quality errors found in a
health record most commonly occur.
2. What are the steps in the quality improvement model, and
how is benchmarking involved?
3. What agency is focused on developing the scientific

evidence used in decision making?
4. When should a histogram be used to display data?
5. How do performance improvement and risk management
relate to database management?
6. Identify the tools that could be used when a group needs to
develop new ideas or organize the performance improvement
project.
7. How would an organization examine its internal
performance under ORYX?
8. How is information collected in the Compare reports for
hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies?
9. During what stage of the utilization review process is the
appropriateness of the admission assessed?
10. Why is it important to have accurate and clear
documentation of the patient's discharge status?
ENRICHMENT ACTIVITY
1. Using Medicare's Web site, http://www.medicare.com,
search for “Nursing Home Compare” and compare reports for
nursing homes located in your geographic area. Compare the
data from at least three individual nursing homes against the
national and state averages. Report to your instructor the
conclusions of your comparison. As an alternative, three
hospitals or three home health agencies can be researched by
searching on the Medicare home page for “Hospital Compare”
or “Home Health Compare.” Use the different comparison tools
of your choice to display the data.
WEB SITES
Academy of Certified Case Managers,
http://www.academyccm.org
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
http://www.ahrq.gov
American Health Information Management Association,
http://www.ahima.org
American Society for Quality, http://www.asq.org
Case Management Society of America, http://www.cmsa.org
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation,

http://www.innovations.cms.gov
Commission for Case Manager Certification,
http://www.ccmcertification.org
Consumers' Checkbook, http://www.checkbook.org
HealthGrades, http://www.healthgrades.com
Home Health Compare,
http://www.medicare.gov/hhcompare/home.asp
Hospital Compare, http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies,
http://www.iom.edu
iSix Sigma, http://www.isixsigma.com
Joint Commission, http://www.jointcommission.org
Juran Institute, http://www.juran.com
The Leap Frog Group Hospital Safety Score,
http://www.leapfroggroup.org
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program,
http://www.quality.nist.gov
National Association for Healthcare Quality,
http://www.nahq.org
National Committee for Quality Assurance, http://www.ncqa.org
NCQA's Health Plan Report Card, www.hprc.ncqa.org
Nursing Home Compare,
http://www.medicare.gov/nhcompare/home.asp
Patient Safety Organizations, http://www.pso.ahrq.gov
Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council,
http://www.phc4.org
Select Quality Care, http://www.selectqualitycare.com
The W. Edwards Deming Institute, http://www.deming.org
WebMD, http://www.WebMD.com
REFERENCES
Carroll, R. (Ed.). (2004). Risk management handbook for health
care organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Donabedian, A. (2003). An introduction to quality assurance in
health care. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Green, M. A., & Bowie, M. J. (2005). Essentials of health
information management. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A
new health system for the 21st century. Rockville, MD: Author.
Kavaler, F., & Spiegel, A. (2003). Risk management in health
care institutions: A strategic approach (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett.
LaTour, K., & Eichenwald, S. (2002). Health information
management concepts, principles, and practice. Chicago:
American Health Information Management Association.
Shaw, P., Elliott, C., Isaacson, P., & Murphy, E. (2003). Quality
and performance improvement in healthcare. Chicago: American
Health Information Management Association.
NOTES
1.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resources,
Glossary of Definitions, http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/.
2.
See, e.g., 2003 Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for
Hospitals: The Official Handbook, Performance Improvement
Measures PI.1–PI.5, Performance Measurement, and the ORYX
Initiative.
3.
http://tutor2u.net/business/production/quality_circles_kaizen.ht
m (last accessed 01/11/12).
4.
http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/Deming_cycle_PDCA-
650. htm (last accessed August 7, 2011).
5.
http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/FOCUS-_-PDCA-823.htm.
6.
Donabedian A. (1966). Evaluating the quality of medical care.
Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://www.milbank.org
/quarterly/830416donabedian.pdf.
7.
Public Law 100 107, signed into law on August 20, 1987,
created the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. See
http://www .quality.nist.gov.

8.
Six Sigma is a federally registered trademark of Motorola
Corporation. See http://www.isixsigma.com.
9.
Listings of other grants are available on the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality Web site at
http://www.ahrq.gov.
10.
January 26, 2004. Wkly. Compilation Presidential Documents
94, 2004 WLNR 11425351.
11.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A
new health system for the 21st century. See
http://www.iom.edu.
12.
Nursing Home Compare reports available at
http://www.medicare .gov/nhcompare/home.asp (last accessed
01/11/12).
13.
Hospital Compare reports available at http://www
.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov.
14.
Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization
Act (MMA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395w (2012).
15.
Hospital Report Card Act, 210 ILL. COMP. STAT. 86/1-99
(West 2012); Missouri Nosocomial Infection Control Act of
2004, MO. REV. STAT. § 192.667 (2012); Healthcare Cost
Containment Act, PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 35, § 449.1-.19 (West
2012).
16.
FLA. STAT. ANN. § 408.05 (1–3) (2012) (hospitals to report
infection rates); N.Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW § 2819 (McKinney
2012) (hospitals to report nosocomial infections); VA. CODE
ANN. § 32.1–35.1 (Michie 2012) (hospitals to report infections
to federal and state authorities).

17.
Joint Commission. (2003). Comprehensive accreditation manual
for hospitals: The official handbook, performance measurement,
and the ORYX initiative (IM.8, IM.10). Chicago: Author.
18.
Ibid.
19.
Ibid. Current core measures include: acute myocardial
infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), community acquired
pneumonia (CAP), and pregnancy-related conditions (PR).
20.
Information on CATCH may be found on the USF Center for
Health Outcomes Research Web site at
http://www.chor.hsc.usf.edu.
21.
45 C.F.R. § 164.306 (2012).
22.
45 C.F.R. § 164.306(e) (2012).
23.
The 7th Scope of Work (SOW), Title XI of the Social Security
Act, Part B, as amended by the Peer Review Act of 1982.
Details of the most current work plan (9th Scope of Work) are
available at https://www.cms.gov/OpenDoorForums/Downloads
/QIO111306.pdf (last accessed 01/11/12 ).
24.
42 CFR, Part 456. Utilization Control, Subparts B and C (2012).

HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docx

More Related Content

Similar to HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docx (20)

More from AlysonDuongtw (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docx