Paul G Shekelle

BACKGROUND: Experts consider health information technology key to improving efficiency and quality of health care. PURPOSE: To systematically review evidence on the effect of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of health care. DATA SOURCES: The authors systematically searched the English-language literature indexed in MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Abstracts Database. We also added studies identified by experts up to April 2005. STUDY SELECTION: Descriptive and comparative studies and systematic reviews of health information technology. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted information on system capabilities, design, effects on quality, system acquisition, implementation context, and costs. DATA SYNTHESIS: 257 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies addressed decision support systems or electronic health records. Approximately 25% of the studies were from 4 academic institutions that implemented internally developed systems; only 9 studies evaluated multifunctional, commercially developed systems. Three major benefits on quality were demonstrated: increased adherence to guideline-based care, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, and decreased medication errors. The primary domain of improvement was preventive health. The major efficiency benefit shown was decreased utilization of care. Data on another efficiency measure, time utilization, were mixed. Empirical cost data were limited. LIMITATIONS: Available quantitative research was limited and was done by a small number of institutions. Systems were heterogeneous and sometimes incompletely described. Available financial and contextual data were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Four benchmark institutions have demonstrated the efficacy of health information technologies in improving quality and efficiency. Whether and how other institutions can achieve similar benefits, and at what costs, are unclear.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of surgery for weight loss and the resulting improvement in health-related outcomes. PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of effectiveness and adverse events associated with surgical treatment of obesity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and systematic reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials; observational studies; and case series reporting on surgical treatment of obesity. DATA EXTRACTION: Information about study design, procedure, population, comorbid conditions, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: The authors assessed 147 studies. Of these, 89 contributed to the weight loss analysis, 134 contributed to the mortality analysis, and 128 contributed to the complications analysis. The authors identified 1 large, matched cohort analysis that reported greater weight loss with surgery than with medical treatment in individuals with an average body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or greater. Surgery resulted in a weight loss of 20 to 30 kg, which was maintained for up to 10 years and was accompanied by improvements in some comorbid conditions. For BMIs of 35 to 39 kg/m2, data from case series strongly support superiority of surgery but cannot be considered conclusive. Gastric bypass procedures result in more weight loss than gastroplasty. Bariatric procedures in current use (gastric bypass, laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, vertical banded gastroplasty, and biliopancreatic diversion and switch) have been performed with an overall mortality rate of less than 1%. Adverse events occur in about 20% of cases. A laparoscopic approach results in fewer wound complications than an open approach. LIMITATIONS: Only a few controlled trials were available for analysis. Heterogeneity was seen among studies, and publication bias is possible. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is more effective than nonsurgical treatment for weight loss and control of some comorbid conditions in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater. More data are needed to determine the efficacy of surgery relative to nonsurgical therapy for less severely obese people. Procedures differ in efficacy and incidence of complications.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative effectiveness of interventions to prevent falls in older adults to either a usual care group or control group. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Medline, HealthSTAR, Embase, the Cochrane Library, other health related databases, and the reference lists from review articles and systematic reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Components of falls intervention: multifactorial falls risk assessment with management programme, exercise, environmental modifications, or education. RESULTS: 40 trials were identified. A random effects analysis combining trials with risk ratio data showed a reduction in the risk of falling (risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.95), whereas combining trials with incidence rate data showed a reduction in the monthly rate of falling (incidence rate ratio 0.80, 0.72 to 0.88). The effect of individual components was assessed by meta-regression. A multifactorial falls risk assessment and management programme was the most effective component on risk of falling (0.82, 0.72 to 0.94, number needed to treat 11) and monthly fall rate (0.63, 0.49 to 0.83; 11.8 fewer falls in treatment group per 100 patients per month). Exercise interventions also had a beneficial effect on the risk of falling (0.86, 0.75 to 0.99, number needed to treat 16) and monthly fall rate (0.86, 0.73 to 1.01; 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to prevent falls in older adults are effective in reducing both the risk of falling and the monthly rate of falling. The most effective intervention was a multifactorial falls risk assessment and management programme. Exercise programmes were also effective in reducing the risk of falling.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a simple method for identifying community-dwelling vulnerable older people, defined as persons age 65 and older at increased risk of death or functional decline. To assess whether self-reported diagnoses and conditions add predictive ability to a function-based survey. DESIGN: Analysis of longitudinal survey data. SETTING: A nationally representative community-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Six thousand two hundred five Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Bivariate and multivariate analyses of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey; development and comparison of scoring systems that use age, function, and self-reported diagnoses to predict future death and functional decline. RESULTS: A multivariate model using function, self-rated health, and age to predict death or functional decline was only slightly improved when self-reported diagnoses and conditions were included as predictors and was significantly better than a model using age plus self-reported diagnoses alone. These analyses provide the basis for a 13-item function-based scoring system that considers age, self-rated health, limitation in physical function, and functional disabilities. A score of >or=3 targeted 32% of this nationally representative sample as vulnerable. This targeted group had 4.2 times the risk of death or functional decline over a 2-year period compared with those with scores <3. The receiver operating characteristics curve had an area of.78. An alternative scoring system that included self-reported diagnoses did not substantially improve predictive ability when compared with a function-based scoring system. CONCLUSIONS: A function-based targeting system effectively and efficiently identifies older people at risk of functional decline and death. Self-reported diagnoses and conditions, when added to the system, do not enhance predictive ability. The function-based targeting system relies on self-report and is easily transported across care settings.

BACKGROUND: Previous reviews have shown inconsistent effects of publicly reported performance data on quality of care, but many new studies have become available in the 7 years since the last systematic review. PURPOSE: To synthesize the evidence for using publicly reported performance data to improve quality. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, MEDLINE, EconLit, and Wilson Business Periodicals (1999-2006) and independent review of articles (1986-1999) identified in a previous systematic review. Only sources published in English were included. STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed articles assessing the effects of public release of performance data on selection of providers, quality improvement activity, clinical outcomes (effectiveness, patient safety, and patient-centeredness), and unintended consequences. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study participants, reporting system or level, study design, selection of providers, quality improvement activity, outcomes, and unintended consequences were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-five articles published since 1986 (27 of which were published since 1999) evaluated the impact of public reporting on quality. Many focus on a select few reporting systems. Synthesis of data from 8 health plan-level studies suggests modest association between public reporting and plan selection. Synthesis of 11 studies, all hospital-level, suggests stimulation of quality improvement activity. Review of 9 hospital-level and 7 individual provider-level studies shows inconsistent association between public reporting and selection of hospitals and individual providers. Synthesis of 11 studies, primarily hospital-level, indicates inconsistent association between public reporting and improved effectiveness. Evidence on the impact of public reporting on patient safety and patient-centeredness is scant. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity made comparisons across studies challenging. Only peer-reviewed, English-language articles were included. CONCLUSION: Evidence is scant, particularly about individual providers and practices. Rigorous evaluation of many major public reporting systems is lacking. Evidence suggests that publicly releasing performance data stimulates quality improvement activity at the hospital level. The effect of public reporting on effectiveness, safety, and patient-centeredness remains uncertain.