Abstract
The reporting of data regarding a facility’s quality measures is a complex one requiring excellent and effective communications to everyone involved. The methodology chosen to present and display the data can have significant impact on its interpretation and application in the clinical setting. There are a number of types of displays available including: tables, bar graphs, scatter diagrams, Pareto charts, radar charts and statistical process control charts. Each of these chart types will be explored in depth. Choosing comparators or data for bench marking is an important choice within an organization depending upon its philosophy regarding process improvement. A number of sources are available for gathering these data. The reporting of a facility’s quality of care and comparison to bench marking data will be ever more important as medicine progresses towards a system that is more focused on quality rather than quantity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Seidel RL, Nash DB. Paying for performance in diagnostic imaging: current challenges and future prospects. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1:952–6.
Spath PL. Introduction to healthcare quality management. 2nd ed. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2013. p. 74–109. Chapter 4, Evaluation performance.
Johnson SP, McLaughlin CP. Measurement and statistical analysis in CQI. In: Mclaughlin CP, Kaluzny AD, editors. Continuous quality improvement in healthcare. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers; 1999.
Schmaltz S, Loeb JM, Hanold LS, Koss RG. Statistical tools for quality improvement. In: Ransom ER, Joshi MS, Nash DB, Ransom SB, editors. The healthcare quality book. 2nd ed. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2011.
Provost LP, Murray SK. The health care data guide: learning from data for improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
Hendel RC. Utilization management of cardiovascular imaging, pre-certification and appropriateness. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008;1(2):241–8.
American College of Cardiology Foundation. National cardiovascular data registry. [Internet]. 2014. [Cited 26 Jul 2014]. Available from: https://www.ncdr.com/webncdr/.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Quality measures and performance standards. [Internet]. 2014. [Cited 26 Jul 2014]. Available from: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Quality_Measures_Standards.html.
The Commonwealth Fund. Why not the best? [Internet]. 2014. [Cited 26 Jul 2014]. Available from: http://www.whynotthebest.org.
Medical Group Management Association. Benchmarking resources. [Internet]. 2014. [Cited 26 Jul 2014]. Available from: http://www.mgma.com/industry-data/all-data-resources/benchmarking-tools-from-mgma-surveys.
Joint Commission Resources. 2014 Core measure sets. [Internet]. 2014. [Cited 26 Jul 2014]. Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/core_measure_sets.aspx.
Executive Agency for Health and Consumers. The EURHOBOP project [internet]. 2013. [Updated 3 Sep 2013; cited 26 Jul 2014]. Available from: http://www.eurhobop.eu.
Tynan A, Berenson RA, Christianson JB. Health plans target advanced imaging services: cost, quality and safety concerns prompt renewed oversight. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Chang. 2008;118:1–4.
Goldsmith J. The future of radiology in the new health care paradigm: the Moreton lecture. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(3):159–63.
Krishnaraj A, Weinreb JC, Ellenbogen PH, Patti JA, Hillman BJ. Radiology in 2022: challenges and opportunities in the coming decade – proceedings of the 12th annual ACR forum. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(1):15–20.
Unger F. Health is wealth: considerations to European healthcare. Contrib Sec Biol Med Sci. 2012;33(1):9–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tilkemeier, P. (2016). Reporting Quality and Determining Benchmarks. In: Tilkemeier, P., Hendel, R., Heller, G., Case, J. (eds) Quality Evaluation in Non-Invasive Cardiovascular Imaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28011-0_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28011-0_33
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28009-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28011-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)