TY - JOUR
T1 - Development of quality measures for the care of patients withgastroesophageal reflux disease
AU - Yadlapati, Rena
AU - Gawron, Andrew J.
AU - Bilimoria, Karl
AU - Keswani, Rajesh N.
AU - Dunbar, Kerry B.
AU - Kahrilas, Peter J.
AU - Katz, Philip
AU - Richter, Joel
AU - Schnoll-Sussman, Felice
AU - Soper, Nathaniel
AU - Vela, Marcelo F.
AU - Pandolfino, John E.
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflicts of interest These authors disclose the following: Peter Kahrilas has done consulting for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Glaxo SmithKline, Trimedyne Inc, and Reckitt Benckiser. Philip Katz received an honorarium for lectures with Takeda and is a consultant for Pfizer Consumer Health, Torax. Marcelo Vela serves on the Covidien Advisory Board. John E. Pandolfino has done consulting for Given Imaging, has grant support from Given imaging, and is a speaker for Given imaging, Astra Zeneca, and Takeda. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts.
Funding Information:
Funding Peter Kahrilas was supported by grant #DK056033 from the Public Health Service. John E. Pandolfino was supported by grants #DK07659 and #DK092217 from the Public Health Service.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 AGA Institute.
PY - 2015/5/1
Y1 - 2015/5/1
N2 - Background & Aims: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common and costly disorder. Symptoms attributed to GERD have a wide spectrum of presentations and complications that have led to complex diagnostic and management algorithms. As such, there is considerable variation in clinical approaches to GERD. In contrast to multiple published guidelines for the management of GERD, there are few validated GERD quality measures. The objective of this study was to use a well-described, formal methodology to develop valid, physician-led quality measures for all aspects of care for patients with GERD. Methods: Quality measures were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines, and GERD experts. Eight clinical experts ranked potential measures for validity on the basis of the RAND/Universityof California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology. Results: Of the 52 proposed quality measures, 24 were rated as valid, and 1 new measure was developed. These valid measures were related to initial diagnosis and management (9), monitoring (3), further diagnostic testing (4), proton pump inhibitor refractory symptoms (2), symptoms of chest pain (1), erosive esophagitis (3), esophageal stricture or ring (1), and surgical therapy (2). Fifteen of these measures were ranked with the highest validity. Twenty-seven measures were determined to be equivocal; 89% of these were extracted from guidelines that were based on low or moderate level evidence. Conclusions: We used RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology to develop quality measures for GERD care. By examining performance on these valid, formally developed quality measures, clinical practices and individual providers can assess their adherence with them and direct quality improvement efforts accordingly.
AB - Background & Aims: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common and costly disorder. Symptoms attributed to GERD have a wide spectrum of presentations and complications that have led to complex diagnostic and management algorithms. As such, there is considerable variation in clinical approaches to GERD. In contrast to multiple published guidelines for the management of GERD, there are few validated GERD quality measures. The objective of this study was to use a well-described, formal methodology to develop valid, physician-led quality measures for all aspects of care for patients with GERD. Methods: Quality measures were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines, and GERD experts. Eight clinical experts ranked potential measures for validity on the basis of the RAND/Universityof California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology. Results: Of the 52 proposed quality measures, 24 were rated as valid, and 1 new measure was developed. These valid measures were related to initial diagnosis and management (9), monitoring (3), further diagnostic testing (4), proton pump inhibitor refractory symptoms (2), symptoms of chest pain (1), erosive esophagitis (3), esophageal stricture or ring (1), and surgical therapy (2). Fifteen of these measures were ranked with the highest validity. Twenty-seven measures were determined to be equivocal; 89% of these were extracted from guidelines that were based on low or moderate level evidence. Conclusions: We used RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology to develop quality measures for GERD care. By examining performance on these valid, formally developed quality measures, clinical practices and individual providers can assess their adherence with them and direct quality improvement efforts accordingly.
KW - Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)
KW - Measure of quality of care
KW - Proton pump inhibitor (PPI)
KW - RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927911166&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927911166&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.11.012
DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.11.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 25460560
AN - SCOPUS:84927911166
SN - 1542-3565
VL - 13
SP - 874-883.e2
JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
IS - 5
ER -