OBJECTIVES: With >6 million hospital stays, costing almost $50 billion annually, hospitalized children represent an important population for which most inpatient quality indicators are not applicable. Our aim was to develop indicators using inpatient administrative data to assess aspects of the quality of inpatient pediatric care and access to quality outpatient care.

METHODS: We adapted the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality quality indicators, a publicly available set of measurement tools refined previously by our team, for a pediatric population. We systematically reviewed the literature for evidence regarding coding and construct validity specific to children. We then convened 4 expert panels to review and discuss the evidence and asked them to rate each indicator through a 2-stage modified Delphi process. From the 2000 and 2003 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Kids' Inpatient Database, we generated national estimates for provider level indicators and for area level indicators.

RESULTS: Panelists recommended 18 indicators for inclusion in the pediatric quality indicator set based on overall usefulness for quality improvement efforts. The indicators included 13 hospital-level indicators, including 11 based on complications, 1 based on mortality, and 1 based on volume, as well as 5 area-level potentially preventable hospitalization indicators. National rates for all 18 of the indicators varied minimally between years. Rates in high-risk strata are notably higher than in the overall groups: in 2003 the decubitus ulcer pediatric quality indicator rate was 3.12 per 1000, whereas patients with limited mobility experienced a rate of 22.83. Trends in rates by age varied across pediatric quality indicators: short-term complications of diabetes increased with age, whereas admissions for gastroenteritis decreased with age.

CONCLUSIONS: Tracking potentially preventable complications and hospitalizations has the potential to help prioritize quality improvement efforts at both local and national levels, although additional validation research is needed to confirm the accuracy of coding.

Context: Without detailed evidence of their effectiveness, pedometers have recently become popular as a tool for motivating physical activity.

Objective: To evaluate the association of pedometer use with physical activity and health outcomes among outpatient adults.

Data Sources: English-language articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport Discus, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Thompson Scientific (formerly known as Thompson ISI), and ERIC (1966-2007); bibliographies of retrieved articles; and conference proceedings.

Study Selection: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported an assessment of pedometer use among adult outpatients, reported a change in steps per day, and included more than 5 participants.

Data Extraction and Data Synthesis: Two investigators independently abstracted data about the intervention; participants; number of steps per day; and presence or absence of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Data were pooled using random-effects calculations, and meta-regression was performed.

Results: Our searches identified 2246 citations; 26 studies with a total of 2767 participants met inclusion criteria (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 18 observational studies). The participants' mean (SD) age was 49 (9) years and 85% were women. The mean intervention duration was 18 weeks. In the RCTs, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2491 steps per day more than control participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 1098-3885 steps per day, P .001). Among the observational studies, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2183 steps per day over baseline (95% CI, 1571-2796 steps per day, P .0001). Overall, pedometer users increased their physical activity by 26.9% over baseline. An important predictor of increased physical activity was having a step goal such as 10,000 steps per day (P = .001). When data from all studies were combined, pedometer users significantly decreased their body mass index by 0.38 (95% CI, 0.05-0.72; P = .03). This decrease was associated with older age (P = .001) and having a step goal (P = .04). Intervention participants significantly decreased their systolic blood pressure by 3.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.7-5.9 mm Hg, P .001). This decrease was associated with greater baseline systolic blood pressure (P = .009) and change in steps per day (P = .08).

Conclusions: The results suggest that the use of a pedometer is associated with significant increases in physical activity and significant decreases in body mass index and blood pressure. Whether these changes are durable over the long term is undetermined.

Background: The comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients in whom both procedures are feasible remains poorly understood.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in patients for whom coronary revascularization is clinically indicated.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (1966–2006); conference proceedings; and bibliographies of retrieved articles. Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) reported in any language that compared clinical outcomes of PCI with those of CABG, and selected observational studies.

Data Extraction: Information was extracted on study design, sample characteristics, interventions, and clinical outcomes.

Data Synthesis: The authors identified 23 RCTs in which 5019 patients were randomly assigned to PCI and 4944 patients were randomly assigned to CABG. The difference in survival after PCI or CABG was less than 1% over 10 years of follow-up. Survival did not differ between PCI and CABG for patients with diabetes in the 6 trials that reported on this subgroup. Procedure-related strokes were more common after CABG than after PCI (1.2% vs. 0.6%; risk difference, 0.6%; P = 0.002). Angina relief was greater after CABG than after PCI, with risk differences ranging from 5% to 8% at 1 to 5 years (P < 0.001). The absolute rates of angina relief at 5 years were 79% after PCI and 84% after CABG. Repeated revascularization was more common after PCI than after CABG (risk difference, 24% at 1 year and 33% at 5 years; P < 0.001); the absolute rates at 5 years were 46.1% after balloon angioplasty, 40.1% after PCI with stents, and 9.8% after CABG. In the observational studies, the CABG–PCI hazard ratio for death favored PCI among patients with the least severe disease and CABG among those with the most severe disease.

Limitations: The RCTs were conducted in leading centers in selected patients. The authors could not assess whether comparative outcomes vary according to clinical factors, such as extent of coronary disease, ejection fraction, or previous procedures. Only 1 small trial used drug-eluting stents.

Conclusion: Compared with PCI, CABG was more effective in relieving angina and led to fewer repeated revascularizations but had a higher risk for procedural stroke. Survival to 10 years was similar for both procedures.

Background: The comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients in whom both procedures are feasible remains poorly understood.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in patients for whom coronary revascularization is clinically indicated.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (1966-2006); conference proceedings; and bibliographies of retrieved articles.

Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) reported in any language that compared clinical outcomes of PCI with those of CABG, and selected observational studies.

Data Extraction: Information was extracted on study design, sample characteristics, interventions, and clinical outcomes.

Data Synthesis: We identified 23 RCTs in which 5019 patients were randomly assigned to PCI and 4944 patients were randomly assigned to CABG. The difference in survival after PCI or CABG was less than 1% over 10 years of follow-up. Survival did not differ between PCI and CABG for patients with diabetes in the 6 trials that reported on this subgroup. Procedural strokes were more common after CABG than after PCI (1.2% vs. 0.6%; risk difference, 0.6%; P = 0.002). Angina relief was greater after CABG than after PCI, with risk differences ranging from 5% to 8% at 1 to 5 years (P 0.001). The absolute rates of angina relief at 5 years were 79% after PCI and 84% after CABG. Repeated revascularization was more common after PCI than after CABG (risk difference, 24% at 1 year and 33% at 5 years; P 0.001); the absolute rates at 5 years were 46.1% after balloon angioplasty, 40.1% after PCI with stents, and 9.8% after CABG. In the observational studies, the CABG-PCI hazard ratio for death favored PCI among patients with the least severe disease and CABG among those with the most severe disease.

Limitations: The RCTs were conducted in leading centers in selected patients. The authors could not assess whether comparative outcomes vary according to clinical factors, such as extent of coronary disease, ejection fraction, or previous procedures. Only 1 small trial used drug-eluting stents.

Conclusion: Compared with PCI, CABG was more effective in relieving angina and led to fewer repeated revascularizations but had a higher risk for procedural stroke. Survival to 10 years was similar for both procedures.

We also explored the association between the number of antihypertensives and systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressure. After 15 months, 41% of participants met blood pressure targets. CKD was not associated with control (adjusted odds ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.15). However, CKD was associated with higher odds of use of ≥3 medications among nondiabetic subjects (odds ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.71) and diabetic subjects (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.66). A significant interaction was observed between CKD and the number of antihypertensives as determinants of diastolic and pulse pressures. Among non-CKD participants, a greater number of antihypertensives (0 compared with 4) was associated with wider pulse pressure ({Delta}5.2 mm Hg; P<0.001), mainly because of higher systolic pressures ({Delta}3.6 mm Hg; P=0.001).

Among participants with CKD, although greater numbers of antihypertensives were associated with even wider pulse pressures ({Delta}8.3 mm Hg; P<0.001), this was primarily because of lower diastolic pressures ({Delta}4.8 mm Hg; P<0.01). Among participants with CKD, greater use of antihypertensives was associated with lower diastolic pressures. Given recent evidence suggesting adverse effects of diastolic hypotension, these results suggest potential risks in patients with CKD from aggressive attempts to control systolic blood pressure.

CONTEXT: Quality problems and spiraling costs have resulted in widespread interest in solutions that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system. Care coordination has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as one of the key strategies for potentially accomplishing these improvements.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this project were to develop a working definition of care coordination, apply it to a review of systematic reviews, and identify theoretical frameworks that might predict or explain how care coordination mechanisms are influenced by factors in the health care setting and how they relate to patient outcomes and health care costs.

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: We used literature databases, Internet searches, and personal contacts to assemble background information on ongoing care coordination programs; potential definitions; conceptual frameworks and related empirical evidence; and care coordination measures. We also conducted literature searches through September 30, 2006 of MEDLINE®, and November 15, 2006 for CINAHL®, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts to identify systematic reviews of care coordination interventions. We excluded systematic reviews with a narrow focus, namely those conducted solely in the inpatient setting, or where the only two participants involved in care were the patient and a health care provider.

RESULTS: We identified numerous ongoing programs in the private and public sector, most of which have not yet been evaluated. We identified over 40 definitions of care coordination and related terminology, and developed a working definition drawing together common elements: Care coordination is the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants (including the patient) involved in a patient's care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services. Organizing care involves the marshalling of personnel and other resources needed to carry out all required patient care activities, and is often managed by the exchange of information among participants responsible for different aspects of care. We used this definition to develop our inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting potentially relevant systematic reviews. Our literature search yielded 4,730 publications, of which 75 systematic reviews evaluating care coordination interventions, either fully or as a part of the review, met inclusion criteria. From these, we identified 20 different coordination interventions (e.g., multidisciplinary teams, case management, disease management) covering 12 clinical populations (e.g., mental health, heart disease, diabetes) and conducted in multiple settings (e.g., outpatient, community, home). Finally, we identified four conceptual frameworks (Andersen's behavioral framework, Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework, Nadler/Tushman and others' Organizational design framework with Wagner's Chronic Care Model provided as an example of such design, and Gittell's Relational coordination framework) with potential applicability to studying care coordination by assessing baseline characteristics of the environment, specific coordination mechanism alternatives, and outcomes. The strongest evidence shows benefit of care coordination interventions for patients who have congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, severe mental illness, a recent stroke, or depression, though evidence about key intervention components is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: Care coordination interventions represent a wide range of approaches at the service delivery and systems level. Their effectiveness is most likely dependent upon appropriate matching between intervention and care coordination problem, though more conceptual, empirical and experimental research is required to explore this hypothesis.

Context: Quality problems and spiraling costs have resulted in widespread interest in solutions that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system. Care coordination has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as one of the key strategies for potentially accomplishing these improvements.

Objectives: The objectives of this project were to develop a working definition of care coordination, apply it to a review of systematic reviews, and identify theoretical frameworks that might predict or explain how care coordination mechanisms are influenced by factors in the health care setting and how they relate to patient outcomes and health care costs.

Data Sources and Review Methods: We used literature databases, Internet searches, and personal contacts to assemble background information on ongoing care coordination programs; potential definitions; conceptual frameworks and related empirical evidence; and care coordination measures. We also conducted literature searches through September 30, 2006, of MEDLINE®, and November 15, 2006, for CINAHL®, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts to identify systematic reviews of care coordination interventions. We excluded systematic reviews with a narrow focus, namely those conducted solely in the inpatient setting, or where the only two participants involved in care were the patient and a health care provider.

Results: We identified numerous ongoing programs in the private and public sector, most of which have not yet been evaluated. We identified over 40 definitions of care coordination and related terminology, and developed a working definition drawing together common elements:

Care coordination is the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants (including the patient) involved in a patient's care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services. Organizing care involves the marshalling of personnel and other resources needed to carry out all required patient care activities, and is often managed by the exchange of information among participants responsible for different aspects of care.

We used this definition to develop our inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting potentially relevant systematic reviews. Our literature search yielded 4,730 publications, of which 75 systematic reviews evaluating care coordination interventions, either fully or as a part of the review, met inclusion criteria. From these, we identified 20 different coordination interventions (e.g., multidisciplinary teams, case management, disease management) covering 12 clinical populations (e.g., mental health, heart disease, diabetes) and conducted in multiple settings (e.g., outpatient, community, home). Finally, we identified four conceptual frameworks (Andersen's behavioral framework, Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework, Nadler/Tushman and others' Organizational design framework with Wagner's Chronic Care Model provided as an example of such design, and Gittell's Relational coordination framework) with potential applicability to studying care coordination by assessing baseline characteristics of the environment, specific coordination mechanism alternatives, and outcomes.

The strongest evidence shows benefit of care coordination interventions for patients who have congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, severe mental illness, a recent stroke, or depression, though evidence about key intervention components is lacking.

Conclusions: Care coordination interventions represent a wide range of approaches at the service delivery and systems level. Their effectiveness is most likely dependent upon appropriate matching between intervention and care coordination problem, though more conceptual, empirical and experimental research is required to explore this hypothesis.