Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma
- 136 Downloads
The aim of this study was to assess the concurrent validity between the identification of sub-optimal treatment based on clinical information and computer generated indicators. Indicators that are associated with sub-optimal treatment in one of the four steps of asthma management were assessed.
The ability of each indicator to identify patients with sub-optimal asthma treatment from computerised general practitioner (GP) prescription records was assessed by comparing them with the results of an individual patient assessment using clinical data.
Chronic asthma patients (n=146) registered with 16 Dutch GPs.
The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of each performance indicator was determined.
The step-1 indicator, focusing on patients not prescribed a short-acting β-agonist, had an acceptable sensitivity (0.86), but a low PPV (0.52). The two step-2 indicators, targeting under-prescription of inhaled corticosteroids, had sensitivities of 0.74 and 0.37 and PPVs of 0.46 and 0.71, respectively. The step-3 indicator, which targeted under-dosing of inhaled corticosteroids, had a sensitivity of 0.07 and a PPV of 0.2. The fourth indicator, focusing on under-prescription of long-acting β-agonists, could not be validated due to inadequate numbers of patients with severe asthma in our study sample.
None of the indicators investigated was considered valid for assessing prescriber performance, despite having good face and content validity. Performance indicators that have not been validated can only provide a broad-brush approach for assessing prescribing quality and should be used with extreme caution.
KeywordsQuality indicators Drug therapy Asthma
We wish to thank Annet Nicolai for her valuable assistance with the spirometry and patient assessment and Professor Dirkje Postma for her help in preparing this manuscript.
- 3.Sheldon T (1998) Promoting health care quality: what role performance indicators. Qual Health Care 7[Suppl]:S45–S50Google Scholar
- 6.Grol R, Wensing M (2001) Implementation: effective change in patient care. (In Dutch: Implementatie: effectieve verandering in de patientenzorg.) Elsevier, MaarssenGoogle Scholar
- 8.Dutch Association of the Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry (2002) Nefarma annual report 2000.Google Scholar
- 11.National Institute of Health (1992) International consensus report on diagnosis and treatment of asthma. Clin Exp Allergy 22[Suppl1]:1–72Google Scholar
- 12.National Institutes of Health (1997) Expert panel report 2: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. NIH publication number: 97–4051. National Institutes of Health, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
- 13.National Institutes of Health. (1995) Global strategy for asthma management and for asthma management and prevention NHLBI/WHO workshop. NIH publication number: 95–3659. NHLBI/WHO, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
- 25.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. (1999) ATC index with DDDs. World Health Organization, OlsoGoogle Scholar
- 26.World organisation of family Doctors (WONCA) (2000) ICPC-2: international classification of primary care, 2nd edn. Oxford Medical Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 27.Bland M (2000) An introduction to medical statistics, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 28.Altman DG (1997) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar