Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma

L. G. Pont, P. Denig, Thys Van Der Molen, W. J. van der Veen, F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    25 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Objectives. 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.

    Design. 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.

    Setting. Chronic asthma patients (n=146) registered with 16 Dutch GPs.

    Main measures. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of each performance indicator was determined.

    Results. The step-1 indicator, focusing on patients not prescribed a short-acting beta-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 beta-agonists, could not be validated due to inadequate numbers of patients with severe asthma in our study sample.

    Discussion. 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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)833-840
    Number of pages7
    JournalEuropean Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
    Volume59
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2004

    Keywords

    • quality indicators
    • drug therapy
    • asthma
    • 4 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
    • GENERAL-PRACTICE
    • YOUNG-ADULTS
    • DRUG-USE
    • CARE
    • MANAGEMENT
    • DOCTORS
    • APPROPRIATENESS
    • INFORMATION
    • GUIDELINES

    Cite this

    Pont, L. G., Denig, P., Van Der Molen, T., van der Veen, W. J., & Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M. (2004). Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 59, 833-840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-003-0696-x

    Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma. / Pont, L. G.; Denig, P.; Van Der Molen, Thys; van der Veen, W. J.; Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M.

    In: European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 59, 2004, p. 833-840.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Pont, L. G. ; Denig, P. ; Van Der Molen, Thys ; van der Veen, W. J. ; Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M. / Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma. In: European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2004 ; Vol. 59. pp. 833-840.
    @article{c22105a48e72418fbccfbb717d4d779a,
    title = "Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma",
    abstract = "Objectives. 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.Design. 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.Setting. Chronic asthma patients (n=146) registered with 16 Dutch GPs.Main measures. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of each performance indicator was determined.Results. The step-1 indicator, focusing on patients not prescribed a short-acting beta-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 beta-agonists, could not be validated due to inadequate numbers of patients with severe asthma in our study sample.Discussion. 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.",
    keywords = "quality indicators, drug therapy, asthma, 4 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, GENERAL-PRACTICE, YOUNG-ADULTS, DRUG-USE, CARE, MANAGEMENT, DOCTORS, APPROPRIATENESS, INFORMATION, GUIDELINES",
    author = "Pont, {L. G.} and P. Denig and {Van Der Molen}, Thys and {van der Veen}, {W. J.} and Haaijer-Ruskamp, {F. M.}",
    year = "2004",
    doi = "10.1007/s00228-003-0696-x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "59",
    pages = "833--840",
    journal = "European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology",
    issn = "0031-6970",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Validity of performance indicators for assessing prescribing quality: the case of asthma

    AU - Pont, L. G.

    AU - Denig, P.

    AU - Van Der Molen, Thys

    AU - van der Veen, W. J.

    AU - Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M.

    PY - 2004

    Y1 - 2004

    N2 - Objectives. 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.Design. 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.Setting. Chronic asthma patients (n=146) registered with 16 Dutch GPs.Main measures. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of each performance indicator was determined.Results. The step-1 indicator, focusing on patients not prescribed a short-acting beta-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 beta-agonists, could not be validated due to inadequate numbers of patients with severe asthma in our study sample.Discussion. 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.

    AB - Objectives. 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.Design. 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.Setting. Chronic asthma patients (n=146) registered with 16 Dutch GPs.Main measures. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of each performance indicator was determined.Results. The step-1 indicator, focusing on patients not prescribed a short-acting beta-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 beta-agonists, could not be validated due to inadequate numbers of patients with severe asthma in our study sample.Discussion. 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.

    KW - quality indicators

    KW - drug therapy

    KW - asthma

    KW - 4 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

    KW - GENERAL-PRACTICE

    KW - YOUNG-ADULTS

    KW - DRUG-USE

    KW - CARE

    KW - MANAGEMENT

    KW - DOCTORS

    KW - APPROPRIATENESS

    KW - INFORMATION

    KW - GUIDELINES

    U2 - 10.1007/s00228-003-0696-x

    DO - 10.1007/s00228-003-0696-x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 59

    SP - 833

    EP - 840

    JO - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

    JF - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

    SN - 0031-6970

    ER -