Search

The shift from volume-based to value-based reimbursement has created a need for quantifying clinical performance of infectious diseases (ID) physicians. Nationally recognized ID specialty-specific quality measures will allow stakeholders, such as patients and payers, to determine the value of care provided by ID physicians and will promote clinical quality improvement. Few ID-specific measures have been developed; herein, we provide an overview of the importance of quality measurement for ID, discuss issues in quality measurement specific to ID, and describe standards by which candidate quality measures can be evaluated. If ID specialists recognize the need for quality measurement, then ID specialists can direct ID-related quality improvement, quantify the impact of ID physicians on patient outcomes, compare their performance to that of peers, and convey to stakeholders the value of the specialty., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background Although engagement of infectious disease physicians has been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes in a variety of disease states, the extent of infectious disease (ID) physician engagement in quality improvement (QI) or their knowledge of QI has not been assessed. Methods A 12-question, web-based survey was distributed to members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) between August and October 2019 to assess knowledge of and engagement in QI. The survey link was sent to IDSA members who self-identified patient care as their primary professional activity. Results Responses were received from 200 individuals (5.4% response rate, which is just below the standard IDSA survey response rate of 6%), consisting of 175 adult infectious disease physicians (IDPs). Most respondents were employed in a hospital or clinic (41%), private or group practice (25%), or university/medical center (24%). Fifty-eight percent of respondents currently participate in QI projects, while 38% serve on QI oversight committees. Among respondents, 27% reported not being engaged in QI. Infection prevention/hospital epidemiology (77%), stewardship (72%), and antimicrobial resistance (56%) were the most commonly reported measure types. Respondents reported barriers that limited participation in QI, including cost (61%), lack of time (56%), lack of data collection resources (48%), and lack of an ID-specific registry (46%). IDPs report significant interest in additional training in QI and new quality measures. Conclusions Although IDPs participate in QI, there are gaps in QI knowledge and measurement systems. The low response rate of our survey also suggests a lack of engagement in QI among IDPs. Closing these gaps will benefit ID in a value-driven health care economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]