Development of quality of care indicators for Parkinson's disease

Authors

  • Eric M. Cheng MD, MS,

    Corresponding author
    1. Parkinson's Disease Research, Education Clinical Center (PADRECC), Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
    • VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, B500, ML 127, Department of Neurology, Los Angeles, CA 90073
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Andrew Siderowf MD, MSCE,

    1. PADRECC, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
    2. Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kari Swarztrauber MD, MPH,

    1. PADRECC, Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, USA
    2. Department of Neurology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mahmood Eisa MD,

    1. Department of Neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Martin Lee PhD,

    1. Parkinson's Disease Research, Education Clinical Center (PADRECC), Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Barbara G. Vickrey MD, MPH

    1. Parkinson's Disease Research, Education Clinical Center (PADRECC), Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
    2. Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a major cause of disability. To date, there have been no large-scale efforts to measure the quality of PD care because of a lack of quality indicators for conducting an explicit review of PD care processes. We present a set of quality indicators for PD care. Based on a structured review of the medical literature, 79 potential indicators were drafted. Through a two-round modified Delphi process, an expert panel of seven movement disorders specialists rated each indicator on criteria of validity, feasibility, impact on outcomes, room for improvement, and overall utility. Seventy-one quality indicators met validity and feasibility thresholds. Applying thresholds for impact on outcomes, room for improvement, and overall utility, a subset of 29 indicators was identified, spanning dopaminergic therapy, assessment of functional status, assessment and treatment of depression, coordination of care, and medication use. Multivariable analysis showed that overall utility ratings were driven by validity and impact on outcomes (P < 0.01). An expert panel can reach consensus on a set of highly rated quality indicators for PD care, which can be used to assess quality of PD care and guide the design of quality improvement projects. © 2003 Movement Disorder Society

Ancillary