consensus standards for nursing-sensitive care and implications for certification diane k. boyle,...
TRANSCRIPT
CONSENSUS STANDARDS FOR NURSING-SENSITIVE CARE AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATION
Diane K. Boyle, PhD, RN;Diane K. Boyle, PhD, RN;Peggy A. Miller, PhD, RN; & Nancy Dunton, PhDPeggy A. Miller, PhD, RN; & Nancy Dunton, PhD
University of Kansas School of NursingUniversity of Kansas School of NursingKansas City, KSKansas City, KS
ABNS Spring ConferenceMarch 5, 2010
Costa Mesa, CA
Objectives1. Describe the evolution of nursing-sensitive
indicators.
2. Discuss the National Quality Forum’s development & maintenance of the National Voluntary Consensus Standards for Nursing-Sensitive Care: An Initial Performance Measure Set.
3. Describe a model for linking nursing specialty certification with process & outcome indicators.
4. Indentify research linking nursing specialty certification with process & outcome measures.
Historical Context(Dawn of Nursing-Sensitive Indicators)
Genesis ofNursing-Sensitive Indicators
Late 1980s — New payment/reimbursement structures and expansion of managed care• RN jobs at risk, care compromised
1994 — American Nurses Association (ANA) launched Patient Safety and Quality of Care Initiative• Established Panel of Experts• Commissioned a literature review to identify valid
and reliable nursing-sensitive indicators
Expert Panel Findings 1995 ANA’s Nursing Report Card for Acute
Care Settings identified 21 indicators likely related to availability and quality of nurses
10 indicators selected for development• TNHPPD*, Skill Mix, RN Satisfaction with work
environment• Injury Falls, Pressure Ulcers, Nosocomial Infections,• Patient Satisfaction (nursing care, pain management,
educational information, care)
*TNHPPD = total nursing hours per patient day
Next Steps 1996 — ANA funded pilot studies in 7
states to assess feasibility of data collection by nurses in hospitals:• CA, AZ, TX, ND, VA, MN, OH
1996 – IOM released report stating there was a paucity of scientific evidence linking nursing with hospital patient outcomes (other than mortality).
1998 — ANA issued request for proposals to develop and manage the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators® (NDNQI®).o Provide hospitals with comparative data for quality
improvement activitieso Develop a national data resource for investigating the
relationship between nursing and patient outcomes
NDNQI Development
1998 — Contract awarded to Midwest Research Institute and University of Kansas School of Nursing
1999 — First reports Issued to ~30 hospitals, almost all of whom were pilot study participants
2010 — ~ 1570 hospitals and 15 indicators
Other HealthcareMeasurement Initiatives
CMS — Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Long history of quality measurement: Care Measures
1986 — The Joint Commission began to plan for performance measurement• 2002 Hospitals begin collecting core measures and hospital
quality measures
1993 — National Committee for Quality Assurance, HEDIS measures
1996 – CalNOC – One of the original state pilot projects for ANA
Measurement Initiatives
1998-2002 — Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ): developed Quality Indicators & Patient Safety Measures • National Quality Measures Clearinghouse
(http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/) 1999 – National Quality Forum founded 2007 — AHRQ launched HCAHPS (Consumer Assessment of
Healthcare Providers & Systems) which includes questions on nursing
• 2008, public reporting began
Quality Measurement and Consensus Standards for Nursing-Sensitive Care
Quality Measurement
What is a quality indicator?
How are measures developed and endorsed?
Key DefinitionsNursing-Sensitive
“…nursing-sensitive performance measures are processes and outcomes— and structural proxies for these processes and outcomes (e.g., skill mix,
nurse staffing hours)—that are affected, provided, and/or influenced by nursing personnel, but for
which nursing is not exclusively responsible. Nursing-sensitive measures must be quantifiably
influenced by nursing personnel, but the relationship is not necessarily causal
National Quality Forum: National Voluntary Consensus Standards for Nursing-Sensitive Care: An Initial Performance Measure Set. Washington, DC: 2004
Key Definitions Quality of Care: Degree to which health
services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge (Institute of Medicine)
Indicator: Valid and reliable quantitative process or outcome measure related to one or more dimensions of performance, such as effectiveness or appropriateness (The Joint Commission)
Quality Assessment
Antecedents Structure Process Outcome
Factors that can influence structure, process:Environmental factorsPatient factors (also influence outcomes)
Organiza-tional character-istics
Interactions between healthcare practitioner & patient
Changes (desirable or undesirable) in individuals & populations
Donabedian’s Structure – Process - Outcome
Types of Quality Indicators/Measures
Structure Process Outcome Use of services (used as
proxy for outcome) Efficiency/cost Patient experience
National Quality Forum (NQF)
Private, non-profit voluntary consensus standards-setting organization
Multi-stakeholder member organization Three-part mission to improve quality of
American healthcare:• Setting national priorities and goals for improvement• Endorsing national consensus standards for
measuring and publicly reporting on performance• Promoting attainment of national goals through
education and outreach programs
NQF Consensus Development Process
Nine Steps1. Call for Intent to Submit Candidate Standards2. Call for Nominations3. Call for Candidate Standards4. Candidate consensus standard review5. Public and member voting6. Consensus Standards Approval Committee (CSAC)
Decision7. Board Ratification8. Appeals
Original NQF Consensus Standards for Nursing-Sensitive Care (2004)
Patient-Centered Outcome Measures “Failure to rescue”* Pressure ulcer prevalence Falls prevalence** Falls with injury Restraint prevalence (vest & limb only) Urinary catheter-associated UTI rate
(ICU)** Central line catheter-associated blood
stream infection rate (ICU & HRN)** Ventilator-associated pneumonia rate
(ICU & HRN)**
Nursing-Centered Intervention Measures Smoking cessation*** counseling for
o Acute myocardial infarctiono Heart failureo Pneumonia
System-Centered Measures Skill mix Nursing care hours per patient day Practice Environment Scale - NWI Voluntary Turnover
* Death among surgical inpatients with treatable serious complications**Also an NQF-endorsed voluntary consensus standard for hospital care
*** The smoking cessation standards were not re-endorsed
NQF Measure Maintenance Annual updates provided by measure steward Ad hoc review for evolving evidence or
identified problems with measure Routine full reviews
• Moving to 3-year cycles by topic area• Meet evaluation criteria with focus on data from
implementation• Harmonization with other NQF-endorsed measures• Best-in-class• Publicly reported
NQF Measure Maintenance Notice of topic with notice of maintenance review and
call for new measures Stewards submit information demonstrating criteria are
met Reviewed by Steering Committee Steering Committee make recommendations
• If competing measures, recommend best-in-class Public comment NQF member voting CSAC approval Board ratification
Measure Evaluation Criteria Importance to measure & report
• Important to make gains in quality (e.g., safety, effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centeredness)
• Evidence supports measure focus
Scientific acceptability• Specifications, reliability, validity, risk-adjustment is evidence-
based, clinically meaningful differences in practice
Usability• Are results understandable and usable in decision making?• Useful for public reporting
Feasibility• By-product of care processes• Unintended consequences
Issues to Ponder
Outcome or Process Measures?
Most medical indicators are process measures.• Critics say that we should measure outcomes not process
Many nursing measures are outcomes• Falls, pressure ulcers, nosocomial infections, PIV
infiltrations
NQF recently suggested that outcomes should be accompanied by best practice process measures• e. g., along with fall rate: fall risk assessment and
prevention protocol implementation
Absolute or Relative Measure?
Sentinel event (Absolute)• Serious, undesirable, and largely avoidable outcome• Utility of a measure that is Yes/No as opposed to a
rate?
Rate-based indicators (Relative)• Patient care events expressed as a proportion or ratio
Risk Adjustment Issue Considerations:
• Adjust for differences in patient populations?• Evaluation based on providing care for
population you have?• Are data available to make effective
adjustment?• Is adjusted measure interpretable by users?
Risk stratification—looking within
DesirableIndicator Qualities
Covers a large segment of the patient population—a typical patient experience
Related to a costly or serious condition
Fosters quality improvement• Should not create incentive for providers to game the system
(improve measures without improving quality)• Focus on interventions, not documentation• Does not focus on what’s being measured to detriment of
aspects of care
Measuring QualityIs Difficult
How do we isolate nursing’s impact or contribution?• Strongly related to nursing (workforce or
processes) Many confounding factors
• Characteristics or actions of the patients• Influence of other healthcare providers• Organization and environment of hospital
What model can be used for linking specialty certification
with processes and outcomes?
Nurse-Sensitive Quality Care (NDNQI Conceptual Model)
Structureof Care
Nursing CareProcesses
PatientOutcomes
Donabedian Model
Example Measures for Nursing-Sensitive Care
Structure Process Outcome
• Size• Teaching status• Payer mix• Magnet status• CNO/manager• Practice environment (e.g., autonomy)• NHPPD• Staff mix• Use of agency staff• Education• Specialty Certification • Other credentials• Turnover
• Risk assessment• Implementation of prevention protocols• Pain management• Medication administration• Counseling • Communication, teamwork, decision making
• Injury falls• HAPUs• Nosocomial infections• “Failure to rescue”• Mobility• Satisfaction with care• Unplanned readmissions
What research exists linking specialty certification with
improved processes and outcomes?
Certification and Patient Outcomes
Nelson et al. (2007), in a study of 54 randomly selected rehabilitation units in the US found:• For every 6% increase in certified rehabilitation nurses (CRRN)
on a unit, mean case-mix adjusted patient length of stay decreased by one day.
• Conversely, more years experience as a rehabilitation nurse corresponded with a longer length of stay.
Lange et al. (2009) found that on units staffed with 2 or more certified nurses, there was a significantly lower fall rate than on units with one or no certified nurses. • Results were confounded by a 3-month education program on
care of geriatric patients.
Certification and Patient Outcomes
Hiser et al. (2006) implemented a quality improvement program that specifically enhanced utilization of Certified Wound Ostomy Continence Nurses (CWOCN) in one medical intensive care unit and found that pressure ulcer prevalence dropped from 29% to near 0%.
Both Frank-Stromborg et al. (2002) and Coleman et al. (2009) found no difference in outcomes (e.g., management of pain & nausea) between certified and noncertified nurses.
Certification and Nursing Processes
Critical care certification was found to be associated significantly with the correct use of a pulmonary artery catheter (Iberti et al., 1994) and decision-making regarding the withholding of digitalis (Walthall et al., 1993).• In both studies certification was confounded with years of
experience.
Kendall-Gallagher (2009) found the proportion of certified nurses and the rates of medication errors had no significant association via correlation or hierarchical linear model analysis.
Certification and Nursing Processes
Zulkowski, Ayello, and Wexler (2007) reported that certified wound care nurses scored wounds significantly more accurately than nurses certified in other specialties or non-certified nurses.
Using a national sample of hospitals and hierarchical
linear modeling, NDNQI investigators found that nurses with wound, continence and/or ostomy certifications were significantly better at identifying (B=0.12, SE=0.03, p<0.001) and staging (B=0.13, SE=0.04, p<0.001) pressure ulcers than other nurses (Gajewski et al., 2007; Hart et al., 2006).
Research Critique Some studies have small sample sizes and weak research
designs. Education and experience often confound the results. Experience as certified nurse may confound the results.
• RNs certified < 5 years report more autonomy, confidence, & collaboration (Cary, 2001).
Much of the research on specialty certified nurses and clinical performance is based on self-report or manager-report data. • Lacks quantitative measurement of performance• No patient outcome data
Research may been conducted in environments where few differences exist between the autonomy of certified and non-certified nurses.
Issues/Questions Need to specify measureable processes and outcomes
that each specialty certification is expected to impact, for example:• Wound, ostomy, continence: pressure ulcer assessment,
pressure ulcer rate, urinary tract infections, etc.• Lactation consultants: exclusive breast milk feeding, etc.• Critical care: ventilator associated pneumonia, etc.
Are there measures that an RN with any specialty certification would impact?• Pain assessment, fall risk assessment
Many processes and outcomes need measure development
Issues/ Questions Is certification a skill level net of education and
experience or as a proxy for education & experience (they are confounded)?• Is there a combination of education and certification
that effects processes and outcomes? • Example: BSN + Certification
Does certification ‘wear off’ over time? Is there a critical prevalence of certified nurses
(unit, workgroup, hospital, clinic) needed to make an impact?
Issues/Questions The impact of specialty certification may be
more difficult to capture when certified nurses:• Exist outside the usual workgroups• Are poorly utilized• Employed in units/workgroups outside their specialty
certification• Have not reached a critical prevalence
RN vs ARPN certification – What are outcomes? Level of analysis – Individual? Unit/Workgroup?
Organization? Multi-level?
Snapshot of Specialty Certified Nurses from the 2009 NDNQI RN Survey
NDNQI RN Survey
RN inclusion criteria:• Full or part-time, regardless
of job title• >50% of time in direct
patient care• Employed a minimum of 3
months on unit• Unit based PRN or per-diem
nurses employed by the hospital (agency or contract nurses are excluded)
Survey Certification Question
Specialty certification inclusion criteria:• Standards have been verified by either the American
Board of Nursing Specialties or the National Organization for Competency Assessment
• Are direct-care related• Are nursing certifications
2009 data are collected on 64 specialty certifications from 18 different specialty entities
NDNQI Certification Question
NDNQI Certification Question
2009 RN Survey Respondents
270,423 US total survey respondents
Category Number Percent
Selected a specialtyCertification
37,579 13.9
Selected ‘other’ option
8,431 3.1
Total 46, 010 17
Where Do Certified RNs Work?
Certifications by Specialty Entity
26.6
13.9
Q & A
References American Nurses Association (ANA). (2004). Measures and indicators that reflect the impact
of nursing actions on outcomes. Scope and Standards for Nurse Administrators, 2nd Ed., Washington, DC.
Davies SM, Geppert J, McClellan M, et al. (May 2001). Refinement of the HCUP Quality Indicators. Technical Review Number 4 (Prepared by UCSF-Stanford Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0013). AHRQ Publication No. 01-0035. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Donabedian A. (1988). The quality of care: How can it be assessed? JAMA, 260,1743-1748. Donabedian, A. (1992). The role of outcomes in quality assessment and assurance. Quality
Review Bulletin, 11, 356-60. National Quality Forum. (2004). National Voluntary Consensus Standards for Nursing-Sensitive
Care: An Initial Performance Measure Set. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org/Projects/n-r/Nursing-Sensitive_Care_Initial_Measures/Nursing_Sensitive_Care__Initial_Measures.aspx
Wunderlich GS, Sloan FA, Davis CK, eds. (1996). Nursing staff in hospitals and nursing homes: Is it adequate? Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Research References Cary, A.H. (2001). Certified registered nurses: Results of the study of the certified
workforce. American Journal of Nursing, 101(1), 44-52. Coleman, E., Coon, S., Lockhart, K., Kennedy, R., Montgomery, R., Copeland, N., et al.
(2009). Effect of certification in oncology nursing on nursing-sensitive outcomes. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 13(2), 165-172.
Frank-Stromborg M, Ward S, Hughes L, et al. Does certification status of oncology nurses make a difference in patient outcomes? ONF. 2002;29:665-672.
Gajewski B, Hart S, Bergquist S, Dunton N. Inter-rater reliability of pressure ulcer staging: ordinal probit Bayesian hierarchical model that allows for uncertain rater response. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26:4602-4618.
Hart S, Bergquist S, Gajewski B, Dunton N. Reliability testing of the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators pressure ulcer indicator. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 2006;21:256-265.
Hiser B, Rochette J, Philbin S, Lowerhouse N, TerBurgh C, Pietsch C. Implementing a pressure ulcer prevention program and enhancing the role of the CWOCN: impact on outcomes. Ostomy/Wound Management. 2006;52(2):48-59.
Iberti TJ, Daily EK, Leibowitz, AB, Schecter, CB, Fischer EP, Silverstein JH. Assessment of critical care nurses’ knowledge of the pulmonary artery catheter. Critical Care Medicine.1994;22:1674-1678.
Research References Kendall-Gallagher, D., & Blegen, M. A. (2009). Competence and certification
of registered nurses and safety of patients in intensive care units. American Journal of Critical Care, 18(2), 106-114.
Lange, J., Wallace, M., Gerard, S., Lovanio, K., Fausty, N., & Rychlewicz, S. (2009). Effect of an acute care geriatric educational program on fall rates and nurse work satisfaction. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40(8), 371-379.
Nelson A, Powell-Cope G, Palacios P, et al. Nurse staffing and patient outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation settings. Rehabilitation Nursing. 2007;32(5):179-202.
Walthall SA, Odtohan B, McCoy MA, Fromm B, Frankovich D, Lehmann MH. Routine withholding of digitalis for heart rate below 60 beats per minute: widespread nursing misconceptions. Heart & Lung.1993;22: 472-476.
Zulkowski K, Ayello EA, Wexler S. Certification and education: do they affect pressure ulcer knowledge in nursing? Advances in Skin & Wound Care. 2007;20(1):34-38.