Improving the care of patients treated with hemodialysis: A report from the health care financing administration's core indicators project

William M. McClellan, J. Michael Soucie, Jenna Krisher, Ralph Caruana, William E Haley, Charles Farmer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To determine the impact of a quality improvement intervention on dialysis care delivered to hemodialysis patients, we studied 213 hemodialysis facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Dialysis adequacy measurements made on two random samples of 30 patients per treatment center, or all patients if fewer than 30 were treated, selected in October 1994 (preintervention) and October 1995 (postintervention) were used to estimate the facility mean urea reduction ratio (URR) and the proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50%. The 10% of facilities (n = 22) with the highest proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50% in the facility at preintervention were selected for an intervention that included feedback of facility-specific mean URR, educational programs, a quality improvement workshop, and monitoring until improvement was attained. Changes between preintervention and postintervention facility mean URR and proportions of patients with a URR lass then 60% and 65% were used to assess the impact of the intervention. After 1 year, the mean URR had increased an average of 7% in intervention centers compared with an increase of 1.4% (P < 0.001) in the remainder of the treatment centers the Network. There was an average reduction of 17.2% in the proportion of patients with a URR less then 65% intervention canters compared with 4.8% in the other facilities (P < 0.001). Comparable reductions in the proportion of patients with a mean URR of less than 60% were 16.2% in intervention centers and 2.0% in comparison facilities (P < 0.001). After controlling for facility case mix and other characteristics, the intervention was independently associated with an absolute 2.4% increase in facility-specific mean URR. We conclude that the intervention was associated with improvement in hemodialysis care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)584-592
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume31
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 1998

Fingerprint

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
Renal Dialysis
Urea
Patient Care
Quality Improvement
Dialysis
Diagnosis-Related Groups
Education

Keywords

  • Continuous quality Improvement
  • Dialysis adequacy
  • ESRD
  • Urea reduction ratio

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Nephrology

Cite this

Improving the care of patients treated with hemodialysis : A report from the health care financing administration's core indicators project. / McClellan, William M.; Soucie, J. Michael; Krisher, Jenna; Caruana, Ralph; Haley, William E; Farmer, Charles.

In: American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 31, No. 4, 04.1998, p. 584-592.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McClellan, William M. ; Soucie, J. Michael ; Krisher, Jenna ; Caruana, Ralph ; Haley, William E ; Farmer, Charles. / Improving the care of patients treated with hemodialysis : A report from the health care financing administration's core indicators project. In: American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 1998 ; Vol. 31, No. 4. pp. 584-592.
@article{90987cc5dccb4d2cbf7efc401af362b6,
title = "Improving the care of patients treated with hemodialysis: A report from the health care financing administration's core indicators project",
abstract = "To determine the impact of a quality improvement intervention on dialysis care delivered to hemodialysis patients, we studied 213 hemodialysis facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Dialysis adequacy measurements made on two random samples of 30 patients per treatment center, or all patients if fewer than 30 were treated, selected in October 1994 (preintervention) and October 1995 (postintervention) were used to estimate the facility mean urea reduction ratio (URR) and the proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50{\%}. The 10{\%} of facilities (n = 22) with the highest proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50{\%} in the facility at preintervention were selected for an intervention that included feedback of facility-specific mean URR, educational programs, a quality improvement workshop, and monitoring until improvement was attained. Changes between preintervention and postintervention facility mean URR and proportions of patients with a URR lass then 60{\%} and 65{\%} were used to assess the impact of the intervention. After 1 year, the mean URR had increased an average of 7{\%} in intervention centers compared with an increase of 1.4{\%} (P < 0.001) in the remainder of the treatment centers the Network. There was an average reduction of 17.2{\%} in the proportion of patients with a URR less then 65{\%} intervention canters compared with 4.8{\%} in the other facilities (P < 0.001). Comparable reductions in the proportion of patients with a mean URR of less than 60{\%} were 16.2{\%} in intervention centers and 2.0{\%} in comparison facilities (P < 0.001). After controlling for facility case mix and other characteristics, the intervention was independently associated with an absolute 2.4{\%} increase in facility-specific mean URR. We conclude that the intervention was associated with improvement in hemodialysis care.",
keywords = "Continuous quality Improvement, Dialysis adequacy, ESRD, Urea reduction ratio",
author = "McClellan, {William M.} and Soucie, {J. Michael} and Jenna Krisher and Ralph Caruana and Haley, {William E} and Charles Farmer",
year = "1998",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "584--592",
journal = "American Journal of Kidney Diseases",
issn = "0272-6386",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the care of patients treated with hemodialysis

T2 - A report from the health care financing administration's core indicators project

AU - McClellan, William M.

AU - Soucie, J. Michael

AU - Krisher, Jenna

AU - Caruana, Ralph

AU - Haley, William E

AU - Farmer, Charles

PY - 1998/4

Y1 - 1998/4

N2 - To determine the impact of a quality improvement intervention on dialysis care delivered to hemodialysis patients, we studied 213 hemodialysis facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Dialysis adequacy measurements made on two random samples of 30 patients per treatment center, or all patients if fewer than 30 were treated, selected in October 1994 (preintervention) and October 1995 (postintervention) were used to estimate the facility mean urea reduction ratio (URR) and the proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50%. The 10% of facilities (n = 22) with the highest proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50% in the facility at preintervention were selected for an intervention that included feedback of facility-specific mean URR, educational programs, a quality improvement workshop, and monitoring until improvement was attained. Changes between preintervention and postintervention facility mean URR and proportions of patients with a URR lass then 60% and 65% were used to assess the impact of the intervention. After 1 year, the mean URR had increased an average of 7% in intervention centers compared with an increase of 1.4% (P < 0.001) in the remainder of the treatment centers the Network. There was an average reduction of 17.2% in the proportion of patients with a URR less then 65% intervention canters compared with 4.8% in the other facilities (P < 0.001). Comparable reductions in the proportion of patients with a mean URR of less than 60% were 16.2% in intervention centers and 2.0% in comparison facilities (P < 0.001). After controlling for facility case mix and other characteristics, the intervention was independently associated with an absolute 2.4% increase in facility-specific mean URR. We conclude that the intervention was associated with improvement in hemodialysis care.

AB - To determine the impact of a quality improvement intervention on dialysis care delivered to hemodialysis patients, we studied 213 hemodialysis facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Dialysis adequacy measurements made on two random samples of 30 patients per treatment center, or all patients if fewer than 30 were treated, selected in October 1994 (preintervention) and October 1995 (postintervention) were used to estimate the facility mean urea reduction ratio (URR) and the proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50%. The 10% of facilities (n = 22) with the highest proportion of patients with a mean URR less than 50% in the facility at preintervention were selected for an intervention that included feedback of facility-specific mean URR, educational programs, a quality improvement workshop, and monitoring until improvement was attained. Changes between preintervention and postintervention facility mean URR and proportions of patients with a URR lass then 60% and 65% were used to assess the impact of the intervention. After 1 year, the mean URR had increased an average of 7% in intervention centers compared with an increase of 1.4% (P < 0.001) in the remainder of the treatment centers the Network. There was an average reduction of 17.2% in the proportion of patients with a URR less then 65% intervention canters compared with 4.8% in the other facilities (P < 0.001). Comparable reductions in the proportion of patients with a mean URR of less than 60% were 16.2% in intervention centers and 2.0% in comparison facilities (P < 0.001). After controlling for facility case mix and other characteristics, the intervention was independently associated with an absolute 2.4% increase in facility-specific mean URR. We conclude that the intervention was associated with improvement in hemodialysis care.

KW - Continuous quality Improvement

KW - Dialysis adequacy

KW - ESRD

KW - Urea reduction ratio

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031944021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031944021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9531173

AN - SCOPUS:0031944021

VL - 31

SP - 584

EP - 592

JO - American Journal of Kidney Diseases

JF - American Journal of Kidney Diseases

SN - 0272-6386

IS - 4

ER -