Evaluating the Effectiveness of Concurrent Review: Does It Improve Stroke Measure Results?

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background:

Concurrent review is a quality improvement strategy in which patients are tracked from admission to discharge, and messages are communicated to the responsible physician when quality stroke measures have not been met. There is little research regarding interventions that might influence clinical practice patterns and improvement in compliance with core quality measures. This study sought to evaluate whether concurrent review implementation was associated with change in performance on stroke measure outcome data.

Methods:

Randomly selected charts from 2 hospitals (A and B) during 3 time periods were reviewed. In period 1, neither hospital had a process for concurrent review. In period 2, hospital A, where concurrent review was implemented, was compared with hospital B without this process. In period 3, both hospitals had the process of concurrent review. Information on baseline demographics, insurance status, and length of stay was collected, as well as stroke performance measures.

Results:

A total of 620 medical records were reviewed during the 3 time periods. Although the number of beds and annual stroke volume were higher at hospital B, patient characteristics were similar. During period 2, when hospital A implemented concurrent review and hospital B had not, a statistically significant higher compliance with performance in 7 stroke measures occurred in hospital A than in hospital B. In period 3, when both hospitals utilized concurrent review, no statistical significant differences occurred in 7 of the 10 stroke measures.

Conclusion:

Concurrent review is a quality improvement intervention that increases performance with stroke performance measures.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles