The 1999 ICSI/IHI colloquium on clinical quality improvement--"quality: settling the frontier"

BACKGROUND: A Colloquium on Clinical Quality Improvement, "Quality: Setting the Frontier," held in May 1999, covered methods and programs in clinical quality improvement. Leadership and organizational behavior were the main themes of the breakout sessions; specific topics included implementing guidelines, applying continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods in preventive services and primary care, and using systems thinking to improve clinical outcomes. Three keynote addresses were presented. LEADERSHIP FOR QUALITY: James L. Reinertsen, MD (CareGroup, Boston), characterized the financial challenges faced by many health care organizations as a "clarion call" for leadership on quality. "The leadership imperative is to establish an environment in which quality can thrive, despite unprecedented, severe economic pressures on our health systems." LINKING GROUP AND ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES: How do we make improvement more effective? G. Ross Baker, PhD (University of Toronto), reviewed what organizational literature says about making teams more effective, understanding the organizational context to enable improvement work, and augmenting existing methods for creating sustainable improvement. For example, he noted the increasing interest among may organizations in rapid-cycle improvement but cautioned that such efforts may work best where problems can be addressed by existing clinical teams (not cross-functional work groups) and where there are available solutions that have worked in other settings. IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT FOR QUALITY: Mark Chassin, MD (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York), stated that critical tasks for improving quality include increasing public awareness, engaging clinicians in improvement, increasing the investment in producing measures and improvement tools, and reinventing health care delivery, clinical education and training, and QI.     

Using the Internet to teach consumers about quality care

BACKGROUND: The Internet is an important source of health information for consumers. Patients can learn about their diagnoses, review treatments and medications, and locate other health information for themselves and their families. Information about quality care can also be found on the Internet. Few consumers, though, use these Web sites for learning about quality care. SEARCH FOR WEB SITES ON QUALITY CARE: In 2000 the investigators searched the Internet and generated a list of approximately 90 relevant Internet documents under the broad heading of quality health care. They then pared the list to 34, by using the Health Information Technology Institute (HITI) criteria. TESTING OF INTERNET DOCUMENTS BY CONSUMERS: In the second phase of the project, 5 of the 34 Internet documents were tested by a convenience sample of 32 consumers. Most of the participants had experience in using the Internet, although generally not in the area of quality care. They found the Web sites easy to use and indicated that the Internet resources would help them assess the quality of care they receive from physicians, nurses, and others. DISCUSSION: Web sites need to be evaluated to ensure that the information they provide is accurate and current, among other criteria. All patients should understand their health benefits and the importance of making informed decisions about their health care, as well as how quality care is measured, how to use quality reports, how to choose providers and hospitals, how to assess the quality of their own care and be more involved in it, and what they should do when faced with new diagnoses.     

Federal efforts to improve quality of care: the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC)

FORMATION OF THE QUIC: The Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC) was established in 1998 to enable the participating federal agencies to coordinate their activities to study, measure, and improve the quality of care delivered by federal health programs; provide people with information to help them in making more informed choices about their care; and develop the research base and infrastructure needed to improve the health care system, including knowledgeable and empowered workers, well-designed systems of care, and useful information systems. STUDY, MEASURE, AND IMPROVE CARE: The QuIC's initial efforts to improve the care delivered in federal health care programs have focused on diabetes, depression, and the effect of working conditions on quality of care. More recently, patient safety efforts are under way to establish a coordinating center that will enable those who are testing methods of reducing errors to share information across their projects and with experts in error reduction. DEVELOP A RESEARCH BASE AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The QuIC has coordinated efforts in credentialing, information on measures of quality, a taxonomy of quality improvement methods, and errors data collection. PROVIDE INFORMATION TO AMERICANS ABOUT HEALTH CARE QUALITY: The QuIC agencies are developing products that will enhance their ability to communicate with the American people about their health care choices: improved gateways for consumer information available from federal agencies, a glossary of commonly used terms, and guidance for producing report cards on quality of care. MOVING THE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AGENDA FORWARD: Federal efforts to improve quality of care are moving forward in a more integrated fashion on a wide number of fronts.     

Quality improvement initiatives in Brazil: a progress report.

BACKGROUND: In 1994 Brazil's Ministry of Health (MOH) introduced a program to provide a supporting environment for quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Yet the five-track QI strategy, which included moving toward outcome indicators, establishing a national accreditation program, emphasizing QI tools, establishing basic clinical guidelines, and enhancing community control, was discontinued in 1998, following the dismissal of the minister of health. The QI program retained only its accreditation activities. ACCREDITATION: The Consortium for Brazilian Accreditation (CBA) began in 1994 to establish an accreditation process compatible with international initiatives. Both the MOH and the CBA have developed standards for hospitals. The Brazilian Manual for the Accreditation of Hospitals is available on the Internet. The CBA has developed a set of standards by adapting the 1996 hospital standards from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. To developing CBA's role as an accrediting organization, administrative and technical supporting structures were created within the Cesgranrio Foundation and a Joint Commission for Accreditation was established. QUALITY MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES: A growing number of hospitals, clinical laboratories, blood banks, health plans, and other health care services and organizations are seeking International Organization for Standardization (Geneva) certification. Consulting firms in the field of quality management continue to increase the number of their clients in the health sector. CONCLUDING REMARKS: Current QI initiatives represent only a minority of health care services and organizations in the country. Strong efforts need to be made by both the private and public sectors to expand such initiatives throughout Brazil.     

Applying the domain management model in treating patients with chronic diseases

BACKGROUND: In the health care system in the United States, the management of chronic health conditions and their functional consequences challenge and frustrate patients, caregivers/families, health care providers, and physicians. Contributing factors include a lack of physician and health care provider training and a health system that emphasizes diagnosis and management of acute illnesses. A broader patient care model is required for patients with chronic disease(s). USING THE DOMAIN MANAGEMENT MODEL (DMM) TO CLASSIFY PATIENTS' CLINICAL PROBLEMS: The DMM is a synthesis of approaches used in internal medicine, geriatric medicine, and physical medicine and rehabilitation. All clinical problems, their treatments, and their outcomes can be classified and followed over time in a multiaxial model with four domains-medical/surgical issues, mental status/emotions/coping, physical function, and living environment. APPLICATIONS OF THE DMM IN MEDICAL RECORD TEMPLATES: Use of the four domain headings in standard templates can lead to an improved awareness of all the relevant issues in the management of chronic illnesses. This awareness precedes a physician's implementation of better care processes. Also, good patient care decisions require good information. MANAGEMENT OF FUNCTIONAL PROBLEMS: The DMM can be used to educate care providers and organize care in terms of important and common functional problem (for example, trouble walking, which lacks a standard approach in health care). CONCLUSION: This common framework for the organization, documentation, and communication of patients' care over time will help teach systematic mangement of chronic health conditions and help with future research on complex patient management.     

Clinical performance improvement series. Classic CQI integrated with comprehensive disease management as a model for performance improvement.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, health and disease management has emerged as an effective means of delivering, integrating, and improving care through a population-based approach. Since 1997 the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) has utilized the key principles and components of continuous quality improvement (CQI) and disease management to form a model for health care improvement that focuses on designing best practices, using best practices to influence clinical decision making, changing processes and systems to deploy and deliver best practices, and measuring outcomes to improve the process. Experience with 28 programs and more than 14,000 patients indicates significant improvement in outcomes, including high physician satisfaction, increased patient satisfaction, reduced costs, and improved clinical process and outcome measures across multiple diseases. DIABETES DISEASE MANAGEMENT: In three months a UPHS multidisciplinary diabetes disease management team developed a best practice approach for the treatment of all patients with diabetes in the UPHS. After the program was pilot tested in three primary care physician sites, it was then introduced progressively to additional practice sites throughout the health system. The establishment of the role of the diabetes nurse care managers (certified diabetes educators) was central to successful program deployment. Office-based coordinators ensure incorporation of the best practice protocols into routine flow processes. A disease management intranet disseminates programs electronically. Outcomes of the UPHS health and disease management programs so far demonstrate success across multiple dimensions of performance-service, clinical quality, access, and value. DISCUSSION: The task of health care leadership today is to remove barriers and enable effective implementation of key strategies, such as health and disease management. Substantial effort and resources must be dedicated to gain physician buy-in and achieve compliance. The challenge is to provide leadership support, to reward and recognize best practice performers, and to emphasize the use of data for feedback and improvement. As these processes are implemented successfully, and evidence of improved outcomes is documented, it is likely that this approach will be more widely embraced and that organizationwide performance improvement will increase significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Health care has traditionally invested extraordinary resources in developing best practice approaches, including guidelines, education programs, or other tangible products and services. Comparatively little time, effort, and resources have been targeted to implementation and use, the stage at which most efforts fail. CQI's emphasis on data, rapid diffusion of innovative programs, and rapid cycle improvements enhance the implementation and effectiveness of disease management.     

Joint Commission World Symposium on Improving Health Care Through Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the world, in developed and developing countries alike, governments, payers, employers, and consumers desire means of holding providers accountable for the quality of care purchased and delivered. To explore the relevance and value of accreditation systems for meeting these various needs, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (Oakbrook Terrace, III) cosponsored a "World Symposium on Improving Health Care Through Accreditation," in Barcelona, Spain, July 8-10, 1999. To sharpen the issues involved in improving health care worldwide, the program was organized around debates focusing on four provocative propositions. Each pair of keynote debaters was followed by a reactor panel, audience discussion, and balloting. PROPOSITIONS: 1. No single set of quality standards is appropriate for universal use in health care organizations; 2. Health care financing mechanisms provide the primary incentives and disincentives to deliver high-quality health care; 3. Effective health system reform must be legislated and encompass reliance on the private sector; and 4. An accreditation system that includes professional credentialing and evidence-based practice will improve health care outcomes. SUMMARY: There was much agreement that emphasis on accountability has stimulated dramatic growth in internal (organizational) quality management programs, external (cross-organizational) benchmarking with comparative data, and accreditation or certification.     

The impact of quality report cards on choice of physicians, hospitals, and HMOs: a midcourse evaluation

BACKGROUND: Increasing competition in health care markets and ongoing pressures to contain costs raise concerns about possible deterioration in the quality of medical care. Publicly disseminated quality report cards are designed to inform consumers' choice of providers and health plans, thus counteracting incentives to provide low-quality care and improving the functioning of health care markets. METHODS: This article reviews and evaluates the published evidence on the impact of quality report cards on patients' choice of health care providers and health plans. RESULTS: Studies found only minimal effect of quality report cards on patient referral choices. These findings can be explained by several study design issues and by the economic forces governing health care markets. They cannot be construed to imply that quality report cards are not effective. DISCUSSION: Whether report cards are effective or not is still an unanswered question. Further efforts to improve the information contained in report cards and to make them more understandable could increase their effectiveness.     

The strategic use of outcome information

BACKGROUND: Most health care executives see outcome measurement as a technical or tactical matter rather than as a strategic tool. Accordingly, provider investment in outcome measurement and management is relatively small. Nevertheless, outcome information can be key to achieving an organization's strategic objectives. Advances in risk adjustment and improvements in technology for data collection and analysis have made outcome measurement a practical tool for individual hospital use. CASE STUDIES: Strategically integrated outcome measurement efforts can give providers a competitive advantage over organizations that only use outcomes tactically. One of the best examples of an acute care provider that has used outcome information for strategic advantage is Intermountain Health Care (IHC; Salt Lake City). In 1997 IHC made clinical quality and outcomes the primary focus of its five-year strategic plan. To support the new strategy IHC's board of trustees approved the development of an outcome information system that generated data along clinical processes of care and the creation of a new management structure to use these data to hold professionals accountable and to set and achieve clinical improvement goals. From 1996 to 1999, IHC's share of the commercial health care market in Utah increased from roughly 50% to about 62% of the market, with the result that it has stopped actively marketing its services. DISCUSSION: Health care executives will not willingly invest in outcomes until they believe that they have business value. Therefore, making the business case for outcomes can help improve the quality of health care and the lives of individuals.     

Setting thresholds for quality indicators derived from MDS data for nursing home quality improvement reports: an update

BACKGROUND: Determining meaningful thresholds to reinforce excellent performance and flag potential problem areas in nursing home care is critical for preparing reports for nursing homes to use in their quality improvement programs. This article builds on the work of an earlier panel of experts that set thresholds for quality indicators (QIs) derived from Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment data. Thresholds were now set for the revised MDS 2.0 two-page quarterly form and Resource Utilization Groups III (RUGS III) quarterly instrument. SETTING THRESHOLDS: In a day-long session in October 1998, panel members individually determined lower (good) and upper (poor) threshold scores for each QI, reviewed statewide distributions of MDS QIs, and completed a follow-up Delphi of the final results. REPORTING MDS QIS FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: The QI reports compiled longitudinal data for all residents in the nursing home during each quarter and cumulatively displayed data for five quarters for each QI. A resident roster was provided to the nursing home so that the quality improvement team could identify the specific residents who developed the problems defined by each QI during the last quarter. Quality improvement teams found the reports helpful and easy to interpret. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: As promised in an earlier report, to ensure that thresholds reflect current practice, research using experts in a panel to set thresholds was repeated as needed. As the MDS instrument or recommended calculations for the MDS QIs change, thresholds will be reestablished to ensure a fit with the instrument and data.     

The role of complaint management in the service recovery process

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction and retention can be influenced by the development of an effective service recovery program that can identify complaints and remedy failure points in the service system. Patient complaints provide organizations with an opportunity to resolve unsatisfactory situations and to track complaint data for quality improvement purposes. SERVICE RECOVERY: Service recovery is an important and effective customer retention tool. One way an organization can ensure repeat business is by developing a strong customer service program that includes service recovery as an essential component. The concept of service recovery involves the service provider taking responsive action to "recover" lost or dissatisfied customers and convert them into satisfied customers. Service recovery has proven to be cost-effective in other service industries. THE COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: The complaint management process involves six steps that organizations can use to influence effective service recovery: (1) encourage complaints as a quality improvement tool; (2) establish a team of representatives to handle complaints; (3) resolve customer problems quickly and effectively; (4) develop a complaint database; (5) commit to identifying failure points in the service system; and (6) track trends and use information to improve service processes. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Customer retention is enhanced when an organization can reclaim disgruntled patients through the development of effective service recovery programs. Health care organizations can become more customer oriented by taking advantage of the information provided by patient complaints, increasing patient satisfaction and retention in the process.     

Balancing accountability and improvement: a case study from Massachusetts

BACKGROUND: The Massachusetts Health Quality Partnership (MHQP), a coalition of health care providers and insurers, and business and government organizations, conducted a voluntary statewide survey about patients' experiences with inpatient care at Massachusetts hospitals in 1998, and made the results public. METHODS: MHQP contracted with The Picker Institute (Boston) to conduct the statewide survey about seven dimensions of care for adult medical, surgical, and maternity patients at 58 hospitals across Massachusetts. The communications strategy for public report release was designed to promote fair reporting by the news media and emphasize the improvement goals of performance measurement above evaluation. Along with critical agreements on report design, trial surveys, advertising, and commitments from coalition members about the use of survey results, these measures sought to drive out fear of participation and unfair evaluation. RESULTS: Statewide news media coverage reflected the project's communications goals. Editorial praise for the report was widespread. The project stimulated numerous hospital quality improvement efforts and focused hospital leaders on the need to improve patients' experiences with hospital care. All participating hospitals voluntarily renewed their enrollment for a third survey and public report cycle, and new hospitals joined the project. DISCUSSION: Voluntary public release of performance information by health care providers is possible when the risks, motivations, rewards, and penalties of measurement and public reporting are understood and carefully managed. The goals of public accountability reporting will be realized sooner when it is wedded to the spirit of continuous quality improvement and when providers are engaged as partners at every step of the measurement and reporting process.     

Comparison of an enhanced versus a written feedback model on the management of Medicare inpatients with venous thrombosis

BACKGROUND: A multistate randomized study conducted under the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA's) Health Care Quality Improvement Program (HCQIP) offered the opportunity to compare the effect of a written feedback intervention (WFI) with that of an enhanced feedback intervention (EFI) on improving the anticoagulant management of Medicare beneficiaries who present to the hospital with venous thromboembolic disease. METHODS: Twenty-nine hospitals in five states were randomly assigned to receive written hospital-specific feedback (WFI) of feedback enhanced by the participation of a trained physician, quality improvement tools, and an Anticoagulant Management of Venous Thrombosis (AMVT) project liaison (EFI). Differences in the performance of five quality indicators between baseline and remeasurement were assessed. Quality managers were interviewed to determine perceptions of project implementation. RESULTS: No significant differences in the change from baseline to remeasurement were found between the two intervention groups. Significant improvement in one indicator and significant decline in two indicators were found for one or both groups. Yet 59% of all quality managers perceived the AMVT project as being successful to very successful, and more EFI quality managers perceived success than did WFI managers (71% versus 40%). In the majority of EFI hospitals, physician liaisons played an important role in project implementation. CONCLUSION: Study results indicated that the addition of a physician liaison, quality improvement tools, and a project liaison did not provide incremental value to hospital-specific feedback for improving quality of care. Future studies with larger sample sizes, lengthier follow-up periods, and interventions that include more of the elements shown to affect practice behavior change are needed to identify an optimal feedback model for use by external quality management organizations.     

Integrating clinical performance improvement across physician organizations: the PhyCor experience

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature describing the implementation of clinical performance improvement (CPI) efforts across geographically dispersed multispecialty group practices and independent practice associations. PhyCor, a physician management company based in Nashville, Tennessee, has integrated CPI initiatives into its operating infrastructure. PhyCor CPI INITIATIVES: The strategic framework guiding PhyCor's CPI initiatives is built around a physician-driven, patient-centered model. Physician/administrator leadership teams develop and implement a clinical and financial strategic plan for performance improvement; adopt local clinical and operational performance indicators; and agree on and gain consensus with local physician champions to engage in CPI initiatives. The area/regional leadership councils integrate and coordinate regional medical management and CPI initiatives among local groups and independent practice associations. In addition to these councils and a national leadership council, condition-specific care management councils have also been established. These councils develop condition-specific protocols and outcome measures and lead the implementation of CPI initiatives at their own clinics. RESOURCES: Key resources supporting CPI initiatives include information/knowledge management, education and training, and patient education and consumer decision support. PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS: Localized efforts in both the asthma care and diabetes management initiatives have led to some preliminary improvements in quality of care indicators. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND CHALLENGES: Physician leadership and strategic vision, CPI-oriented organizational infrastructure, broad-based physician involvement in CPI, providing access to performance data, parallel incentives, and creating a sense of urgency for accelerated change are all critical success factors to the implementation of CPI strategies at the local, regional, and national levels.     

Financial incentives for ambulatory care performance improvement.

BACKGROUND: Measuring and improving the quality of care while curtailing costs are essential objectives in capitated care. As patient care moves from the hospital to outpatient settings, quality management resources must be shifted to ambulatory care process improvement. The Quality Improvement and Efficiency Financial Incentives Program at Stanford University Medical Center was adopted to increase quality improvement efforts and contain costs. THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM: Each department's budget for care of capitated patients was reduced by 5% from the previous year. Return of a reserve fund (10% of payments for specialty care) required completion of substantive quality improvement projects and containing costs. Successful departments were also eligible for bonus funds. Implementation strategies included endorsement by clinical leaders, physician education, use of administrative data to identify project topics and support measurement of quality and cost variables, project templates and time lines, and the availability of clinical quality managers with special expertise in clinical process improvement. RESULTS: Eight of 13 clinical departments developed and implemented 19 ambulatory quality improvement projects to varying degrees. Success in the program was roughly correlated with the potential impact of the incentive on revenues and the status of the lead person selected by the department to spearhead their efforts. Only 5 departments achieved their cost containment goals. DISCUSSION: Financial incentives are one method of encouraging physicians to use clinical process improvement methods. Endorsement by clinical leaders and selection of realistic beginning projects enhance chances for success. The capitated population has attributes that make it an attractive focus for initial quality improvement efforts.     

The AMA clinical quality improvement forum on addressing patient safety

BACKGROUND: More than 200 health care policy makers and researchers, clinicians, quality professionals, and other representatives of health care organizations, government, and academia attended the Division of American Medical Association Clinical Quality Improvement's conference, "Addressing Patient Safety," April 28, 2000, in Chicago--the first national conference to respond to the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. ADDRESSING PATIENT SAFETY--PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PERSPECTIVES: John M. Eisenberg, MD, stated that research on errors is needed to describe the scope and nature of the problem, understand the barriers to and benefits of improvement, and develop and test strategies for improvement. Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, stated that the National Quality Forum will develop a compendium of best practices and will develop core measures for serious adverse events, and health care organizations and government health programs should act now to make a clear organizational commitment to patient safety, create a nonpunitive health care culture of safety, and implement known safe medication practices. Alan R. Nelson, MD, stated that the IOM report places its emphasis on continuous quality improvement and technology that can be used to mitigate the risks in a complex health system. HOSPITAL AND ACCREDITATION AGENCY ACTIVITIES ON PATIENT SAFETY ISSUES: Donald M. Nielsen, MD, discussed the American Hospital Association's (AHA's) Medication Safety Initiative, which promised to provide its members with successful practices, tools, and resources and to track progress of implementation of the recommended successful practices. Dennis S. O'Leary, MD, stated that when a hospital reports a sentinel event, the hospital is expected to implement improvements to reduce risk and monitor their effectiveness. The National Committee for Quality Assurance is considering changes to its accreditation standards to further address patient safety.     

Health information technologies for patients with diabetes

Patients with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, need daily care and follow-up beyond occasional visits to healthcare providers. Research has shown that overcoming a multifaceted illness, such as diabetes, requires patients to be engaged in the monitoring and management of their own health. Health information technology (HIT) has been shown to empower chronically-ill patients to take charge of their healthcare, and alleviate their daily frustrations while they strive to lead a normal life. In this paper, we surveyed 31 patients with diabetes to identify the major frustrations they experience daily, examine the role of HIT in their current treatment, and identify gaps in their current care and education that, if addressed, could improve their quality of life. Themes identified in our survey results include a lack of interaction with healthcare providers, difficulties in scheduling appointments, a lack of timely communication with healthcare providers, and challenges in managing the complex care of diabetes. The contributions of this paper include a detailed set of recommendations on how HIT can be utilized to help chronically-ill patients live a better life despite their illnesses, with a particular emphasis on diabetes care and management.     

A continuous improvement process for health providers of victims of domestic violence

BACKGROUND: Health care providers can play an important role in the prevention of domestic violence through established processes of identification, safety assessment, validation, documentation, and referral. In 1998 the Safe Family Project, funded by University Health System (UHS), affiliated with University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, provided for a clinical review of existing services for victims of domestic violence. A subsequent review of the health system's policy and clinical practice supported the need for resources and training and for an improved care process for victims of domestic violence. THE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS (CIP) MODEL: UHS adapted the Shewhart cycle of activities popularly referred to as PDSA (plan change, do change, study results, act on results), a systematic, process-focused approach to achieving continuous and measurable improvement, as its CIP model, and it formed a process improvement team. This process led to translation of research findings into best practice guidelines for treatment of domestic violence and staff education. RESULTS: Significant improvements were made in the overall qualitative chart reviews, although the diagnostic coding (using ICD-9 codes and e-codes) did improve. The CIP can be replicated in other settings to improve the care of victims of domestic violence. DISCUSSION: The CIP effort is being extended to outpatient facilities, and managers have requested that the training manual be replicated and placed throughout UHS as a resource manual. Other activities are intended to improve prevention of domestic violence and intervention when it occurs.     

The forgotten component of the quality triad: can we still learn something from "structure"?

BACKGROUND: Quality assessment was founded on structural measures, such as accreditation status of facilities, credentialing of providers, and type of provider. Recent efforts in measures development have focused on processes and outcomes because research has suggested that structural measures are not strong markers of the quality of care at the health plan or provider levels. Nevertheless, the literature on the quality of health care contains a number of examples illustrating the potential application of structural measures to the assessment of quality. The continued development of measures of structure-which would at least measure aspects of the physical environment, working conditions, organizational culture, and provider satisfaction--may be helpful because generalizing from studies of process and outcome requires specification of the conditions under which these linkages are found. A ROAD MAP FOR MEASURES DEVELOPMENT: The Leapfrog Group of large purchasers has promoted the application of three patient safety "leaps" that are, in essence, structural measures: the use of computerized physician order entry, the selective referral of patients to high-volume providers for certain procedures, and the availability of board-certified critical care specialists in intensive care units. Structural measures, like process and outcomes measures, face the same challenges of standardization, reliability, validity, and portability. Field testing of potential measures will be required to examine the feasibility and added value of these measures in real-world settings. CONCLUSION: Research to date suggests that a new cadre of structural measures of health care quality, which have largely been overlooked in the recent measures development boom, have the potential to fill in important gaps in our ability to assess quality.