Quality Data is Key to Improving Education

The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) has been focused since 2005 on advocating for states to build robust state longitudinal data systems (SLDS). While states have made great progress in their data infrastructure, and should continue to emphasize this work, t data systems alone will not improve outcomes. It is time for both DQC and states to focus on building capacity to use the information that these systems are producing at every level – from classrooms to state houses. To impact system performance and student achievement, the ingrained culture must be replaced with one that focuses on data use for continuous improvement. The effective use of data to inform decisions, provide transparency, improve the measurement of outcomes, and fuel continuous improvement will not come to fruition unless there is a system wide focus on building capacity around the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of this data, including through research.

A comparative analysis of hospital -based physician monitoring systems

The purpose of the multiple case-study was to determine how hospital subsystems (such as physician monitoring and credentialing; quality assurance; risk management; and peer review) were supporting the monitoring of physicians? Three large metropolitan hospitals in Texas were studied and designated as hospitals #1, #2, and #3. Realizing that hospital subsystems are a unique entity and part of a larger system, conclusions were made on the premises of a quality control system, in relation to the tools of government (particularly the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA)), and in relation to itself as a tool of a hospital.^ Three major analytical assessments were performed. First, the subsystems were analyzed as to their "completeness"; secondly, the subsystems were analyzed for "performance"; and thirdly, the subsystems were analyzed in reference to the interaction of completeness and performance.^ The physician credentialing and monitoring and the peer review subsystems as quality control systems were most complete, efficient, and effective in hospitals #1 and #3. The HCQIA did not seem to be an influencing factor in the completeness of the subsystem in hospital #1. The quality assurance and risk management subsystem in hospital #2 was not representative of completeness and performance and the HCQIA was not an influencing factor in the completeness of the Q.A. or R.M. systems in any hospital. The efficiency (computerization) of the physician credentialing, quality assurance and peer review subsystems in hospitals #1 and #3 seemed to contribute to their effectiveness (system-wide effect).^ The results indicated that the more complete, effective, and efficient subsystems were characterized by (1) all defined activities being met, (2) the HCQIA being an influencing factor, (3) a decentralized administrative structure, (4) computerization an important element, and (5) staff was sophisticated in subsystem operations. However, other variables were identified which deserve further research as to their effect on completeness and performance of subsystems. They include (1) medical staff affiliations, (2) system funding levels, (3) the system's administrative structure, and (4) the physician staff "cultural" characteristics. Perhaps by understanding other influencing factors, health care administrators may plan subsystems that will be compatible with legislative requirements and administrative objectives. ^

Measuring value in cancer-related health care: A case study in head and neck cancer

In the current climate of escalating health care costs, defining value and accurately measuring it are two critical issues affecting not only the future of cancer care in particular but also the future of health care in general. Specifically, measuring and improving value in cancer-related health care are critical for continued advancements in research, management, and overall delivery of care. However, in oncology, most of this research has focused on value as it relates to insurance industry and payment reform, with little attention paid to value as the output of clinical interventions that encompass integrated clinical teams focusing on the entire cycle of care and measuring objective outcomes that are most relevant to patients. ^ In this study, patient-centered value was defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent, and calculated using objective functional outcomes and total care costs. The analytic sample comprised patients diagnosed with three common head and neck cancers—cancer of the larynx, oral cavity, and oropharynx—who were treated in an integrated tertiary care center over an approximately 10-year period. The results of this study provide initial empirical data that can be used to assess and ultimately to help improve the quality and value of head and neck cancer care, and more importantly they can be used by patients and clinicians to make better-informed decisions about care, particularly what therapeutic services and outcomes matter the most to patients.^