• Todd Schneberk, Maria Bolshakova, Kylie Sloan, Evelyn Chang, Julia Stal, Jennifer Dinalo, Elvira Jimenez, Aneesa Motala, and Susanne Hempel.
• Gehr Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, GNH 1011, 1200 N State Street Rm 1011, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. todd.schneberk@med.usc.edu.
• J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Sep 1; 37 (12): 314731613147-3161.

BackgroundHealthcare systems are increasingly implementing programs for high-need patients, who often have multiple chronic conditions and complex social situations. Little, however, is known about quality indicators that might guide healthcare organizations and providers in improving care for high-need patients. We sought to conduct a systematic review to identify potential quality indicators for high-need patients.MethodsThis systematic review (CRD42020215917) searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE; guideline clearing houses ECRI and GIN; and Google scholar. We included publications suggesting, evaluating, and utilizing indicators to assess quality of care for high-need patients. Critical appraisal of the indicators addressed the development process, endorsement and adoption, and characteristics, such as feasibility. We standardized indicators by patient population subgroups to facilitate comparisons across different indicator groups.ResultsThe search identified 6964 citations. Of these, 1382 publications were obtained as full text, and 53 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified over 1700 quality indicators across studies. Quality indicator characteristics varied widely. The scope of the selected indicators ranged from detailed criterion (e.g., "annual eye exam") to very broad categories (e.g., "care coordination"). Some publications suggested disease condition-specific indicators (e.g., diabetes), some used condition-independent criteria (e.g., "documentation of the medication list in the medical record available to all care agencies"), and some publications used a mixture of indicator types.DiscussionWe identified and evaluated existing quality indicators for a complex, heterogeneous patient group. Although some quality indicators were not disease-specific, we found very few that accounted for social determinants of health and behavioral factors. More research is needed to develop quality indicators that address patient risk factors.© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.

11 keywords...

hide…