Public reporting of antibiotic timing in patients with pneumonia: Lessons from a flawed performance measure

Robert M. Wachter, Scott A. Flanders, Christopher Fee, Peter J. Pronovost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The administration of antibiotics within 4 hours to patients with community-acquired pneumonia has been criticized as a quality standard because it pressures clinicians to rapidly administer antibiotics despite diagnostic uncertainty at the time of patients' initial presentations. The measure was recently revised (to 6 hours) in response to this criticism. On the basis of the experience with the 4-hour rule, the authors make 5 recommendations for the development of future publicly reported quality measures. First, results from samples with known diagnoses should be extrapolated cautiously, if at all, to patients without a diagnosis. Second, for some measures, "bands" of performance may make more sense than "all-or-nothing" expectations. Third, representative end users of quality measures should participate in measure development. Fourth, quality measurement and reporting programs should build in mechanisms to reassess measures over time. Finally, biases, both financial and intellectual, that may influence quality measure development should be minimized. These steps will increase the probability that future quality measures will improve care without creating negative unintended consequences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume149
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jul 1 2008

Fingerprint

Pneumonia
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Uncertainty
Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Public reporting of antibiotic timing in patients with pneumonia : Lessons from a flawed performance measure. / Wachter, Robert M.; Flanders, Scott A.; Fee, Christopher; Pronovost, Peter J.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 149, No. 1, 01.07.2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wachter, Robert M. ; Flanders, Scott A. ; Fee, Christopher ; Pronovost, Peter J. / Public reporting of antibiotic timing in patients with pneumonia : Lessons from a flawed performance measure. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 149, No. 1.
@article{5d042a4db0c54383bc2d43ec4f9d557d,
title = "Public reporting of antibiotic timing in patients with pneumonia: Lessons from a flawed performance measure",
abstract = "The administration of antibiotics within 4 hours to patients with community-acquired pneumonia has been criticized as a quality standard because it pressures clinicians to rapidly administer antibiotics despite diagnostic uncertainty at the time of patients' initial presentations. The measure was recently revised (to 6 hours) in response to this criticism. On the basis of the experience with the 4-hour rule, the authors make 5 recommendations for the development of future publicly reported quality measures. First, results from samples with known diagnoses should be extrapolated cautiously, if at all, to patients without a diagnosis. Second, for some measures, {"}bands{"} of performance may make more sense than {"}all-or-nothing{"} expectations. Third, representative end users of quality measures should participate in measure development. Fourth, quality measurement and reporting programs should build in mechanisms to reassess measures over time. Finally, biases, both financial and intellectual, that may influence quality measure development should be minimized. These steps will increase the probability that future quality measures will improve care without creating negative unintended consequences.",
author = "Wachter, {Robert M.} and Flanders, {Scott A.} and Christopher Fee and Pronovost, {Peter J.}",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "149",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public reporting of antibiotic timing in patients with pneumonia

T2 - Lessons from a flawed performance measure

AU - Wachter, Robert M.

AU - Flanders, Scott A.

AU - Fee, Christopher

AU - Pronovost, Peter J.

PY - 2008/7/1

Y1 - 2008/7/1

N2 - The administration of antibiotics within 4 hours to patients with community-acquired pneumonia has been criticized as a quality standard because it pressures clinicians to rapidly administer antibiotics despite diagnostic uncertainty at the time of patients' initial presentations. The measure was recently revised (to 6 hours) in response to this criticism. On the basis of the experience with the 4-hour rule, the authors make 5 recommendations for the development of future publicly reported quality measures. First, results from samples with known diagnoses should be extrapolated cautiously, if at all, to patients without a diagnosis. Second, for some measures, "bands" of performance may make more sense than "all-or-nothing" expectations. Third, representative end users of quality measures should participate in measure development. Fourth, quality measurement and reporting programs should build in mechanisms to reassess measures over time. Finally, biases, both financial and intellectual, that may influence quality measure development should be minimized. These steps will increase the probability that future quality measures will improve care without creating negative unintended consequences.

AB - The administration of antibiotics within 4 hours to patients with community-acquired pneumonia has been criticized as a quality standard because it pressures clinicians to rapidly administer antibiotics despite diagnostic uncertainty at the time of patients' initial presentations. The measure was recently revised (to 6 hours) in response to this criticism. On the basis of the experience with the 4-hour rule, the authors make 5 recommendations for the development of future publicly reported quality measures. First, results from samples with known diagnoses should be extrapolated cautiously, if at all, to patients without a diagnosis. Second, for some measures, "bands" of performance may make more sense than "all-or-nothing" expectations. Third, representative end users of quality measures should participate in measure development. Fourth, quality measurement and reporting programs should build in mechanisms to reassess measures over time. Finally, biases, both financial and intellectual, that may influence quality measure development should be minimized. These steps will increase the probability that future quality measures will improve care without creating negative unintended consequences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=46449137515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=46449137515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 18591635

AN - SCOPUS:46449137515

VL - 149

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 1

ER -