Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care

Download Report

Transcript Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care

Delivering value for your money
This presentation will cover…
 How much we know about the state of safety and quality in
the Australian healthcare system
 How safe are our hospitals and health services
 The purpose of the National Safety and Quality Health
Service Standards
 Using medical practice variation to improve quality
Safety and Quality
Protect the patient from harm
People + Systems
The Australian Health Care System
The Australian health system is consistently one of
the top performers in OECD countries
7th longest life expectancy at birth life expectancy
at birth 82 yrs
Top 5 countries for survival after heart attack &
Spectacular” declines in death from CVD
(Australia’s Health)
8.9% GDP compared with OECD average 9.3%
Do the sick no harm
“It may seem a strange
principle to enunciate as the
very first requirement in a
Hospital that it should do the
sick no harm.”
Nightingale, F. First sentence of Preface to
Notes on Hospitals (1859, 3rd. Ed.,1863)
Patient harm
• Around 12% adverse
event rate
Death or
• Estimated that 50% of
these events are
less harm
• Don’t know about the
degree of harm
• One in 300 chance of
being harmed –
compared with one in
one million as aircraft
• Medication error
• Patient falls
• Deterioration and failure to
• Suicide
How safe are our hospitals and health services?
How do we assess safety?
• Are patients/carers at the center of care?
• How many patient complaints are received? Week/month/year
• Are they resolved?
• How many SAC1 & SAC2 events?
• What is the HSMR?
• What is the infection rate?
• What is the hand washing rate?
• What is the surgical mortality?
• Results of latest climate survey?
• How are staff assessed?
• How are new technologies assessed?
Funders – Safety & Quality
• Are you getting only good news?
• Do you think that your providers are performing better than then
they really are?
• Do reports contain the concerning news as well as the good news?
• What is world class performance and how do your providers
• Are metrics kept simple and meaningful?
• Are these data shared with fund holders, patients and staff?
• Where does the patient/carer story fit with your Board and
National Safety & Quality Health Service Standards
• To protect the public from harm
• To improve the quality of health service provision
NSQHS Standards
Standard 1
Governance for Safety and
Quality in Health
Service Organisations
Standard 2
Partnering with
Standard 3
Standard 10
Preventing Falls and
Harm from Falls
Standard 4
Standard 9
Recognising and
Responding to Clinical
Deterioration in Acute
Health Care
Standard 5
Patient Identification
and Procedure
Standard 8
Preventing and
Managing Pressure
Standard 7
Blood and Blood
Standard 6
The NSQHS Standards
• Standards 1 and 2 are overarching
• Standards 3 – 10 are clinical standards, selected because
they address areas where:
 The impact of poor safety or quality of care is across a large
patient population
 There is a known gap between existing delivery of care and best
 Improvement strategies exist that are evidence based and
Update of outcomes end of November 2013
1320 public and private health services to be assessed over
3 years
• 297 health public (57%) and private health (43%)
services have undergone accreditation
• 51% have had accreditation status confirmed
• 49% have actions that need to be addressed within 120
What is Medical Practice Variation? (MPV)
MPV across & within countries widely documented
The fact that MPV are not always linked to clinical needs
or patient preference now common knowledge
Australian Atlas of Medical Practice Variation to identify
To stimulate change to bring practice back toward
Decision support tools
Understanding Medical Practice Variation (MPV)
Effective Care:
• Evidence based interventions for which the benefit
exceeds the harms so that most pts should receive the
services (immunisations or beta-blockers following
heart attack)
Preference-sensitive care:
• Treatment options exist but carry different benefits and
risks (PSA screening vs. biopsy)
Lower-value care includes health care activities whose
effectiveness has not been demonstrated
• Plain x-ray for lower back pain, IVF treatment over 40
Unwarranted variation in care
Underuse of effective care
• e.g. screening of diabetics for retinal disease,
prophylaxis for VTE, chronic heart failure management
Overuse of supply sensitive care
• e.g. overuse of acute care sector because of lack of
infrastructure support for chronic disease in the
Misuse of preference sensitive care
• e.g. Failure to accurately communicate risks & benefits
of alternative treatments & failure to base the choice of
treatment on the patients values & preferences
• More health care can lead to worse outcomes
• Almost all interventions have some risks of harm &/or
side effects
• Intervention “creep” to different populations where
benefit unproven or < harms
• Some services become widely used but are of little
proven benefit
Overuse – lower back pain
• Routine imaging in low back pain < 6/52 duration
• Low back pain lifetime incidence of 80%
• In Australia 28% of patients with low back pain have X-Rays
(US 42% of patients)
• Lumbar imaging for low back pain without indications of
serious underlying conditions does not improve clinical
• Potential harms: unneeded follow up tests for incidental
findings, irradiation exposure, increased risk of surgery &
medical costs
Preference sensitive care
Early stage prostate cancer
• Watchful waiting: many prostate cancers never progress to
affect quality of life or survival, but some do
• Radiation: shrinks or eliminates cancer in the prostate, but
there are risks of side effects
• Radical prostatectomy: removes prostate cancer entirely,
but there are substantial risks of incontinence & impotence
The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care
Estimated Cost of Waste in US Health Care
Failures of care delivery - $102-154 billion
Failures of care coordination - $25-45 billion
Overtreatment - $158-226 billion
Administrative complexity - $107-389 billion
Pricing failures - $84-178 billion
Fraud & abuse - $82-272 billion
Sum of midpoint estimates: $910 billion (34% of national health
Berwick & Hackbarth JAMA 2012
Preference sensitive care
• Studies show major gaps in people’s understanding of
their treatment options
• Importance of outcomes, side effects, risks differ for
• Patient preferences may be poorly understood by doctors –
e.g. breast cancer
• Decisions tend to be driven by doctors & favour
• Better informed patients often choose different treatments
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. Best care at lower cost: The path to
continuously learning health care in America.
Preference sensitive care
Decision aids (booklets, videos, web tools)
• prepare people to participate in decisions that involve
weighing potential benefits, risks & scientific uncertainties
about interventions
• present sufficient information about options to help people
clarify how they value benefits vs harms & what matters
• allow informed judgments about options
Decision Aids
Cochrane systematic review
• People using evidence-based decision aids had
• improved knowledge of options
• more accurate expectations of possible benefits &
• choices more consistent with informed values
• greater participation in decision making
• reduced choice of major elective surgery in favour of
conservative options
Stacey et al, 2011
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. Best care at lower cost: The path to
continuously learning health care in America.
OECD Medical Practice Variations
2013 study – 14 countries
Key findings:
• Little variation in low-risk and high benefit procedures
(surgery after hip fracture)
• More in country variation preference sensitive care (cardiac
procedures and diagnostic tests)
• Social health insurance based countries report relatively
lower variation than tax-based health care systems
• Australia stands out for revascularisation and knee
CABG by Medicare Local, age and sex standardised
number per 100,000 population
Knee arthroscopy by Medicare Local, age and sex
standardised number per 100,000 population
Hysterectomy rates by Medicare Local and agestandardised number per 1,000 female population
Age-standardised rates for prostatectomy per 100,000
Age-standardised rates of caesarian sections per 1000
live births
Age-standardised rates of hysterectomy per 100,000