Measuring, assessing, acting: A practice test of quality indicators for coronary heart disease

Background: There are only limited possibilities for doctors in outpatient services to establish quality management that is based on data-driven feedback regarding the quality of health care. However, transparency about one's own activities is a prerequisite for refining this quality. The aim of this project was to make the quality of care for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) more transparent, use this as a basis to initiate improvement processes, and explore the framework conditions and factors promoting or inhibiting the intended improvement of health care quality. Method: 48 general practitioners (GPs) in 32 GP practices from a Bavarian doctors' network (Qualitat und Effizienz, QuE) participated in the project. On the basis of claims data from the AOK-Bayern (a statutory health insurance in Bavaria), data from disease management programs (DMP) and medically documented data, 11 quality indicators for patients with CHD were calculated. The indicator scores were individually presented in feedback reports for each doctor's practice. These were the basis for two quality circles. The indicators were measured again after 12 months, and changes against the baseline measurement were registered. GPs from Bavaria formed the control group. Focus groups with the quality circle moderators and two participant surveys were used to identify promoting and inhibiting factors. Results: The baseline values showed a good level of care. Potential for improvement became apparent for pharmacotherapy with beta blockers and statins. After conducting the quality circles four of the eleven indicators showed an increase as intended ("beta blockers for CHD and cardiac insufficiency", "beta blockers after myocardial infarction", "statins", "successful blood pressure control"). For three of these indicators the increase rates were higher than those in the Bavarian control group. One indicator ("statins") was striking because of the wide variation of practice values suggesting differences in care within the network. The majority of participating doctors regarded the database as valid. Quality circles were highly appreciated as an opportunity for professional exchange among colleagues. The data-based feedback reports helped to make deficits in health care transparent and to identify actions that need to be taken. Barriers to implementing quality improvement measures in clinical practice became apparent. Discussion: Reflecting quality indicators in quality circles can effectively trigger quality improvement processes. Barriers would appear to exist, in particular, to the implementation of measures into daily practice routine. Additional organizational support offered by higher-level quality management structures, IT solutions for patient-related data processing as well as a system of financial compensation, which rewards professional concern for quality, may help to overcome the existing barriers.