Establishing a regional, multisite database for quality improvement and service planning in community-based palliative care and hospice.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient palliative care, an evolving delivery model, seeks to improve continuity of care across settings and to increase access to services in hospice and palliative medicine (HPM). It can provide a critical bridge between inpatient palliative care and hospice, filling the gap in community-based supportive care for patients with advanced life-limiting illness. Low capacities for data collection and quantitative research in HPM have impeded assessment of the impact of outpatient palliative care. APPROACH: In North Carolina, a regional database for community-based palliative care has been created through a unique partnership between a HPM organization and academic medical center. This database flexibly uses information technology to collect patient data, entered at the point of care (e.g., home, inpatient hospice, assisted living facility, nursing home). HPM physicians and nurse practitioners collect data; data are transferred to an academic site that assists with analyses and data management. Reports to community-based sites, based on data they provide, create a better understanding of local care quality. CURRENT STATUS: The data system was developed and implemented over a 2-year period, starting with one community-based HPM site and expanding to four. Data collection methods were collaboratively created and refined. The database continues to grow. Analyses presented herein examine data from one site and encompass 2572 visits from 970 new patients, characterizing the population, symptom profiles, and change in symptoms after intervention. CONCLUSION: A collaborative regional approach to HPM data can support evaluation and improvement of palliative care quality at the local, aggregated, and statewide levels.

Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture.

BACKGROUND: Historically, only partial assessments of data quality have been performed in clinical trials, for which the most common method of measuring database error rates has been to compare the case report form (CRF) to database entries and count discrepancies. Importantly, errors arising from medical record abstraction and transcription are rarely evaluated as part of such quality assessments. Electronic Data Capture (EDC) technology has had a further impact, as paper CRFs typically leveraged for quality measurement are not used in EDC processes. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The National Institute on Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network has developed, implemented, and evaluated methodology for holistically assessing data quality on EDC trials. We characterize the average source-to-database error rate (14.3 errors per 10,000 fields) for the first year of use of the new evaluation method. This error rate was significantly lower than the average of published error rates for source-to-database audits, and was similar to CRF-to-database error rates reported in the published literature. We attribute this largely to an absence of medical record abstraction on the trials we examined, and to an outpatient setting characterized by less acute patient conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, medical record abstraction is the most significant source of error by an order of magnitude, and should be measured and managed during the course of clinical trials. Source-to-database error rates are highly dependent on the amount of structured data collection in the clinical setting and on the complexity of the medical record, dependencies that should be considered when developing data quality benchmarks.

Multiple Response System: Evaluation of Policy Change in North Carolina's Child Welfare System.

Systemic challenges within child welfare have prompted many states to explore new strategies aimed at protecting children while meeting the needs of families, but doing so within the confines of shrinking budgets. Differential Response has emerged as a promising practice for low or moderate risk cases of child maltreatment. This mixed methods evaluation explored various aspects of North Carolina's differential response system, known as the Multiple Response System (MRS), including: child safety, timeliness of response and case decision, frontloading of services, case distribution, implementation of Child and Family Teams, collaboration with community-based service providers and Shared Parenting. Utilizing Child Protective Services (CPS) administrative data, researchers found that compared to matched control counties, MRS: had a positive impact on child safety evidenced by a decline in the rates of substantiations and re-assessments; temporarily disrupted timeliness of response in pilot counties but had no effect on time to case decision; and increased the number of upfront services provided to families during assessment. Qualitative data collected through focus groups with providers and phone interviews with families provided important information on key MRS strategies, highlighting aspects that families and social workers like as well as identifying areas for improvement. This information is useful for continuous quality improvement efforts, particularly related to the development of training and technical assistance programs at the state and local level.