The Adverse Outcome Index Putting Quality Into an Outcome Measure

被引:6
作者
Atallah, Fouad [1 ]
Bernstein, Peter S.
Diaz, Danilo Acosta
Minkoff, Howard
机构
[1] Maimonides Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 967 48th St,1st Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11219 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/AOG.0000000000002791
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
The Adverse Outcome Index, originally designed to provide an objective inventory of adverse outcomes, is often promoted as a tool for assessing the quality of inpatient obstetric care. Although the Adverse Outcome Index is well described, and its outcomes are easy to collect, it has notable drawbacks such as "paradoxical measures" (eg, blood transfusions are counted as adverse measures even when they are used appropriately) and the dominance of certain measures within the Adverse Outcome Index that can drive scores (eg, neonatal intensive care unit admissions). In this article, we argue that in addition to the limitations noted, the Adverse Outcome Index, although providing a reasonable measure of inpatient obstetric acuity, fails to be a reliable measure of quality. This is particularly important because many organizations are seeking quality measures and the Adverse Outcome Index may become a candidate tool. We believe that introducing an adjudication process to the Adverse Outcome Index would greatly enhance its role as a quality indicator. Until newly proposed quality measures are perfected and adopted, a quality-adjusted Adverse Outcome Index will allow this widely used measure to provide a more reliable determination of those adverse events potentially amenable to performance improvement.
引用
收藏
页码:750 / 753
页数:4
相关论文
共 8 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2016, Obstet Gynecol, V128, pe54, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001642
[2]  
Goffman Dena, 2014, J Healthc Risk Manag, V33, P14, DOI 10.1002/jhrm.21131
[3]  
Hamilton E, 2011, REVISITING PERINATAL
[4]   Quality measures in high-risk pregnancies: Executive Summary of a Cooperative Workshop of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [J].
Iriye, Brian K. ;
Gregory, Kimberly D. ;
Saade, George R. ;
Grobman, William A. ;
Brown, Haywood L. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 217 (04) :B2-B25
[5]   Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes [J].
Ivers, N. ;
Jamtvedt, G. ;
Flottorp, S. ;
Young, J. M. ;
Odgaard-Jensen, J. ;
French, S. D. ;
O'Brien, M. A. ;
Johansen, M. ;
Grimshaw, J. ;
Oxman, A. D. .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2012, (06)
[6]   Measuring severe maternal morbidity: validation of potential measures [J].
Main, Elliott K. ;
Abreo, Anisha ;
McNulty, Jennifer ;
Gilbert, William ;
McNally, Colleen ;
Poeltler, Debra ;
Lanner-Cusin, Katarina ;
Fenton, Douglas ;
Gipps, Theresa ;
Melsop, Kathryn ;
Greene, Naomi ;
Gould, Jeffrey B. ;
Kilpatrick, Sarah .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 214 (05) :643.e1-643.e10
[7]   Assessing Quality in Obstetrical Care: Development of Standardized Measures [J].
Mann, Susan ;
Pratt, Stephen ;
Gluck, Paul ;
Nielsen, Peter ;
Risser, Daniel ;
Greenberg, Penny ;
Marcus, Ronald ;
Goldman, Marlene ;
Shapiro, David ;
Pearlman, Mark ;
Sachs, Benjamin .
JOINT COMMISSION JOURNAL ON QUALITY AND PATIENT SAFETY, 2006, 32 (09) :497-505
[8]   Opportunities for improvement in care among women with severe maternal morbidity [J].
Ozimek, John A. ;
Eddins, Rhonda M. ;
Greene, Naomi ;
Karagyozyan, Daniela ;
Pak, Sujane ;
Wong, Melissa ;
Zakowski, Mark ;
Kilpatrick, Sarah J. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 215 (04)