Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 23256-23259 [2013-08946]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23256
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices
Settlement Agreement include that Dr.
Bois denied that he committed research
misconduct but he agreed not to further
appeal ORI’s findings of research
misconduct set-forth above. Dr. Bois and
HHS further agreed to the following
administrative actions beginning on
March 14, 2013:
(1) To have his research supervised
for a period of three (3) years beginning
on the effective date of the Agreement;
he agreed that prior to the submission
of an application for U.S. Public Health
Service (PHS) support for a research
project on which his participation is
proposed and prior to his participation
in any capacity on PHS-supported
research, he shall ensure that a plan for
supervision of his duties is submitted to
ORI for approval; the supervision plan
must be designed to ensure the
scientific integrity of his research
contribution; he agreed that he shall not
participate in any PHS-supported
research until such a supervision plan is
submitted to and approved by ORI, with
such review and approval to be
conducted promptly by ORI and not
unreasonably withheld; he agreed to
maintain responsibility for compliance
with the agreed upon supervision plan;
(2) that for three (3) years beginning
with the effective date of the Agreement,
any institution employing him shall
submit, in conjunction with each
application for PHS funds, or report,
manuscript, or abstract involving PHSsupported research in which Dr. Bois is
involved, a certification to ORI that the
data provided by him are based on
actual experiments or are otherwise
legitimately derived and that the data,
procedures, and methodology are
accurately reported in the application,
report, manuscript, or abstract; and
(3) to exclude himself voluntarily
from serving in any advisory capacity to
PHS, including, but not limited to,
service on any PHS advisory committee,
board, and/or peer review committee, or
as a consultant for a period of three
years (3) beginning with the effective
date of the Agreement.
Dr. Bois further agreed to dismiss his
lawsuit with prejudice and to withdraw
further proceedings before HHS. Dr.
Bois and HHS both agreed to waive or
abandon all other claims. This notice
supercedes the notice regarding this
matter that was previously published in:
Federal Register 76:111, June 9, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Division of Investigative
Oversight, Office of Research Integrity,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:54 Apr 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750,
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453–8800.
David E. Wright,
Director, Office of Research Integrity.
[FR Doc. 2013–09134 Filed 4–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice announces the
intention of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approve the proposed
information collection project: ‘‘Pilot
Test of the Proposed Value and
Efficiency Surveys and Communicating
with Patients Checklist.’’ In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the
public to comment on this proposed
information collection.
This proposed information collection
was previously published in the Federal
Register on January 7th, 2013 and
allowed 60 days for public comment. No
comments were received. The purpose
of this notice is to allow an additional
30 days for public comment.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by May 20, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be submitted to: AHRQ’s OMB Desk
Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974
(attention: AHRQ’s desk officer) or by
email at
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov
(attention: AHRQ’s desk officer).
Copies of the proposed collection
plans, data collection instruments, and
specific details on the estimated burden
can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by
email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Proposed Project
Pilot Test of the Proposed Value and
Efficiency Surveys and Communicating
With Patients Checklist
Maximizing value within the
American health care system is an
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
important priority. Value is often
viewed as a combination of high quality,
high efficiency care, and there is general
agreement by consumers, policy makers,
payers, and providers that it is lacking
in the U.S. A recent report by the
Institute of Medicine estimated that 20
to 30 percent ($765 billion a year) of
U.S. healthcare spending was inefficient
and could be reduced without lowering
quality.
Multiple overlapping initiatives are
currently seeking to improve value
using a variety of approaches. Public
reporting efforts led by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),
other payers and consumer groups seek
to enable consumers to make more
informed choices about the quality, and
in some cases, the costs of their care. A
variety of demonstration projects and
payment reforms initiated by CMS and
private insurers are attempting to more
closely link care quality with payments
to create incentives for higher value
care. And national improvement
initiatives led by AHRQ (comprehensive
unit-based safety programs [CUSP] for
central line-associated blood stream
infection [CLABSI], catheter-associated
urinary tract infections [CUTI], and
surgical units [SUSP]) and CMS
(hospital engagement networks, QIO
scopes of work) are seeking to raise care
quality and reduce readmissions.
Results from the CUSP–CLABSI project
have demonstrated that central line
infections can be reduced and
unnecessary costs can be avoided across
the health care system by concerted,
unit-based improvement efforts.
As a systems level example, Denver
Health, with initial funding from AHRQ,
has taken major steps towards
redesigning clinical and administrative
processes so as to reduce staff time,
patient waiting, and unnecessary costs.
These improvements occurred without
harm to quality and in some instances
actually improved quality.
In many cases, improving quality
improves efficiency naturally. Reducing
the number of hospital errors, for
example, will reduce costs associated
with longer length of stay or errortriggered readmissions. It is more costeffective to do things right the first time.
But higher value may be more likely if
organizations doing quality
improvement link efforts to improve
care quality with efforts to reduce
unnecessary costs. AHRQ understands
that many of the root causes of
inefficiencies that drive up costs are
closely linked to root causes of
inefficiencies that lead to poor quality,
uncoordinated care where redundancies
and system failures place patients at
risk. Enhancing value in healthcare
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
requires understanding the contribution
that organizational culture makes to
value and working to foster a culture
where high value is a cultural norm.1
AHRQ’s development of the Hospital
Survey on Patient Safety Culture
(HSOPS) has contributed greatly to
efforts to promote the important role
culture plays in providing safe care.
HSOPS is used extensively in national
improvement campaigns and many
hospitals and health systems now
regularly assess their safety cultures and
use culture scores on organizational
dashboards and as parts of variable
compensation programs.
If organizations lack cultures
committed to value then discrete efforts
to raise dimensions of value are likely
to yield limited and unsustainable
results. And if organizational leaders
have no plausible way to know whether
their organizational culture is
committed to value, then their ability to
make value a higher organizational
priority will be very limited. Thus,
developing value and efficiency survey
instruments for hospitals and medical
offices fills an important need for many
ongoing and planned efforts to foster
greater value within American health
care.
Given the widespread impact of cost
and waste in health care, AHRQ will
develop the Value and Efficiency (VE)
Surveys for hospitals and medical
offices. These surveys will measure staff
perceptions about what is important in
their organization and what attitudes
and behaviors related to value and
efficiency are supported, rewarded, and
expected. The surveys will help
hospitals and medical offices to identify
and discuss strengths and weaknesses
within their individual organizations.
They can then use that knowledge to
develop appropriate action plans to
improve their value and efficiency. To
develop these tools AHRQ will recruit
medical staff from 42 hospitals and 96
medical offices to participate in
cognitive testing and pretesting.
In addition to the VE surveys, AHRQ
also intends to develop and test the
feasibility and utility of a Patient
Communication Checklist. Patients are
demanding greater clarity into the costs
of health care and what they can do
about affordability problems. While
there is recent interest in making health
care prices more transparent for
1 (refers to 2nd paragraph in page 3) According to
Pronovost and Sexton (Assessing Safety Culture:
Guidelines and Recommendations, Qual Saf Health
Care 2005; 14:231–23), ‘‘Definitions of culture
commonly refer to values, attitudes, norms, beliefs,
practices, policies, and behaviors of personnel. In
essence, culture is ‘the way we do things around
here’.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:54 Apr 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
consumers (e.g., the Health Care Price
Transparency Promotion Act of 2013
(H.R. 1326)), physician communication
with patients about the cost of care will
be a key component to attaining highvalue, high-quality care from a patient
perspective. To aid physicians, this
proposal will develop a consumer value
(CV) checklist. Physician checklists
have been instrumental in many quality
improvements, such as with AHRQ’s
reduction in central line-associated
blood stream infections [CLABSI] (See
Atul Gawande’s Checklist Manifesto,
Metropolitan Books, 2009). Checklists
have also reduced surgical
complications by preventing
miscommunication during complex
procedures. Similarly, checklists could
potentially facilitate communication
between clinicians and patients in
complex discussions about patient
preferences, quality, value, and out-ofpocket costs. The objective of the CV
checklist is to facilitate shared decisionmaking, and also engage physician and
patients in joint problem solving. For
example, if discussions emanating from
use of a checklist show that the patient
is not likely to fill a critical prescription
for financial reasons, this could trigger
a discussion of generic substitutes or
state or other subsidies available. Since
the proper goal for any health care
delivery system is to improve the
quality and value of care delivered to
patients, such a tool will bring the
patient perspective on value into the
decision-making about their care.
The CV checklist will address three
major topics: who should talk with
patients about preferences and value
issues (e.g., nurses, physicians, etc.),
when should these conversations occur
(e.g., when patients may incur costs,
when they express financial concerns,
etc.), and how can clinicians prepare for
and effectively facilitate such
discussions.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Develop, cognitively test and
modify as necessary the VE surveys (one
for hospitals and one for medical
offices);
(2) Pretest the VE surveys in hospitals
and medical offices and modify as
necessary based on the results;
(3) Develop, cognitively test and
modify as necessary the checklist;
(4) Seek consumer/patient input on
the potential value of the checklist;
(5) Pretest the checklist in hospitals
and medical offices and either drop or
modify as necessary based on patient
and clinician views of the results;
(6) Make the final VE surveys and
checklist available for use by the public.
This study is being conducted by
AHRQ through its contractor, Health
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23257
Research & Educational Trust (HRET),
and subcontractor, Westat, pursuant to
AHRQ’s statutory authority to conduct
and support research on healthcare and
on systems for the delivery of such care,
including activities with respect to the
quality, effectiveness, efficiency,
appropriateness and value of healthcare
services and with respect to quality
measurement and improvement. 42
U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
Method of Collection
To achieve these goals the following
activities and data collections will be
implemented:
(1) Cognitive interviews for the YE
surveys. One round of interviews on the
VE surveys will be conducted by
telephone with 9 respondents from
hospitals and 9 respondents from
medical offices. The purpose of these
interviews is to understand the
cognitive processes the respondent
engages in when answering a question
on the VE survey and to refine the
survey’s items and composites. These
interviews will be conducted with a mix
of senior leaders and clinical staff (i.e.,
unit/department managers,
practitioners, nurses, technicians, and
medical assistants) from hospitals and
medical offices throughout the U.S. with
varying characteristics (e.g., size,
geographic location, type of medical
office practice/hospital, and possibly
extent of experience with wastereduction efforts).
(2) Pretest for the VE surveys. The
surveys will be pretested with senior
leaders and clinical staff from 42
hospitals and 96 medical offices. The
purpose of the pretest is to collect data
for an assessment of the reliability and
construct validity of the surveys’ items
and composites, allowing for their
further refinement. A site-level point-ofcontact (POC) will be recruited in each
medical office and hospital to manage
the data collection at that organization
(compiles sample information,
distribute surveys, promote survey
response, etc.). Exhibit 1 includes a
burden estimate for the POC’s time to
manage the data collection.
(3) Medical office information form.
This form will be completed by the
medical office manager in each of the 96
medical office pretest sites to provide
background characteristics, such as type
of specialty(s) and majority ownership.
A hospital information form will not be
needed because characteristics on
pretest hospitals will be obtained from
the American Hospital Association’s
(AHA) data set based on a hospital’s
AHA ID number.
(4) Survey to identify items for CV
checklist. In order to identify items to
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
23258
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices
put on the checklist, a survey will be
developed and sent to 160
representative participants (40
Physicians, 40 Registered Nurses, 20
Social Workers, 20 Health Educators,
and 40 Patients). Once the survey
responses have been collected,
responses will be analyzed to help
inform the development of the CV
checklist. Checklist items will be chosen
based on what is learned. For example,
if clinicians strongly believe that it is
inappropriate to discuss costs and value
with patients, the checklist may require
different items than if clinicians
recognize the importance of such
conversations but believe they lack
required information to facilitate them.
(5) Cognitive Interviews for the CV
checklist. Once checklist items have
been identified, cognitive interviews
will be conducted with 9 respondents in
hospitals and 9 respondents in medical
offices to understand the cognitive
processes the respondent engages in
when using the CV checklist. Cognitive
interviewing will allow checklist
developers to identify and classify
difficulties respondents may have
regarding checklist items. To get
different perspectives, interviews will
be conducted with a mix of physicians,
nurses, social workers, health educators,
and patients in hospitals and medical
offices.
(6) Pretest the CV checklist. The
checklist will then be pretested to solicit
feedback from 50 physicians in
hospitals and 50 physicians in medical
offices. The pilot testing process will
help identify areas where users of the
checklist have trouble understanding,
learning, and using the checklist. It also
provides the opportunity to identify
issues that can prevent successful
deployment of the checklist.
(7) Dissemination activities. The final
VE Surveys and CV checklist will be
made available to the public through the
AHRQ Web site. This activity does not
impose a burden on the public and is
therefore not included in the burden
estimates in Exhibit 1.
The information collected will be
used to test and improve the draft
survey items in the VE Surveys and CV
checklist.
The final VE instruments will be
made available to the public for use in
hospitals and medical offices to assess
value and efficiency from the
perspectives of their staff. The survey
can be used by hospitals and medical
offices to identify areas for
improvement. Researchers are also
likely to use the surveys to assess the
impact of hospitals’ and medical offices’
value and efficiency improvement
initiatives.
The final CV checklist will be made
available to hospital and medical office
clinicians to aid in having conversations
with patients about value.
Estimated Annual Respondent Burden
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated
annualized burden hours for the
respondents’ time to participate in this
research. Cognitive interviews for the
Hospital VE survey will be conducted
with 9 hospital staff (approximately 3
managers, 3 nurses, and 3 technicians)
and will take about one hour and 30
minutes to complete. Cognitive
interviews for the Medical Office VE
survey will be conducted with 9
medical office staff (approximately 4
physicians and 5 medical assistants)
and will take about one hour and 30
minutes to complete. The Hospital VE
survey will be administered to about
4,032 individuals from 42 hospitals
(about 96 surveys per hospital) and
requires 15 minutes to complete. A sitelevel POC will spend approximately 16
hours administering the Hospital VE
survey. The Medical Office VE survey
will be administered to about 504
individuals from 96 medical offices
(about 5 surveys per medical office) and
requires 15 minutes to complete. A sitelevel POC will spend approximately 6
hours administering the Medical Office
VE survey. The medical office
information form survey will be
completed by a medical office manager
at each of the 96 medical offices
participating in the pretest and takes 10
minutes to complete.
One-hundred and sixty individuals
(40 physicians, 40 nurses, 20 social
workers, 20 health educators, and 40
patients) will participate in the survey
to identify items for the CV checklist
and will take 15 minutes to complete.
Cognitive interviews for the CV
checklist will be conducted with 18
individuals (9 in hospitals and 9 in
medical offices, consisting of
approximately 4 physicians, 4 nurses, 2
social workers, 2 health educators, and
6 patients) and will take about one hour
to complete. One hundred physicians
will participate in the pretest of the CV
checklist (50 in hospitals and 50 in
medical offices). The total burden is
estimated to be 2,534 hours annually.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated
annualized cost burden associated with
the respondents’ time to participate in
this research. The total cost burden is
estimated to be $115,559 annually.
EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
Number of
respondents
Form name
Number of
resonses per
resondent
Hours per
response
Total burden
hours
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cognitive interviews for the Hospital VE survey ...........................................
Cognitive interviews for the Medical Office VE survey .................................
Pretest for the Hospital VE survey ................................................................
Pretest for the Medical Office VE survey ......................................................
POC Administration of the Hospital VE survey .............................................
POC Administration of the Medical Office VE survey ...................................
Medical office information form .....................................................................
Survey to identify items for CV checklist .......................................................
Cognitive interviews for the CV checklist ......................................................
Pretest for the CV checklist ...........................................................................
9
9
4,032
504
42
96
96
160
18
100
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.5
1.5
15/60
15/60
16
6
10/60
15/60
1
30/60
14
14
1,008
126
672
576
16
40
18
50
Total ........................................................................................................
5,066
na
na
2,534
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:54 Apr 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
23259
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices
EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN
Number of
respondents
Form name
Total burden
hours
Average
hourly wage
rate*
Total cost
burden
Cognitive interviews for the Hospital VE survey .............................................
Cognitive interviews for the Medical Office VE survey ...................................
Pretest for the Hospital VE survey ..................................................................
Pretest for the Medical Office VE survey ........................................................
Administration of the Hospital VE survey ........................................................
Administration of the Medical Office VE survey ..............................................
Medical office information form .......................................................................
Survey to identify items for CV checklist .........................................................
Cognitive interviews for the CV checklist ........................................................
Pretest for the CV checklist .............................................................................
9
9
4,032
504
42
96
96
160
18
100
14
14
1,008
126
672
576
16
40
18
50
a$36.16
i87.98
$506
656
36,308
3,494
37,498
29,364
816
1,801
717
399
Total ..........................................................................................................
5,066
2,534
na
115,559
b46.87
c36.02
d27.73
e55.80
f50.98
f50.98
g45.02
h39.84
* National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates in the United States, May 2011, ‘‘U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics’’ (available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_621100.htm [for medical office setting] and https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
naics4_622100.htm [for hospital setting]).
a Based on the weighted average wages for 3 Registered Nurses (29–1111, $33.56), 3 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians (29–2012,
$19.11), and 3 General and Operational Managers (11–1021, $55.80) in the hospital setting;
b Based on the weighted average wages for 4 Family and General Practitioners (29–1062; $87.18) and 5 Medical Assistants (31–9092, $14.63)
in the medical office setting;
c Based on the weighted average wages for 1,937 Registered Nurses, 1,131 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians, 526 General and
Operational Managers and 446 Physicians (29–1069; $66.23) in the hospital setting;
d Based on the weighted average wages for 91 Family and General Practitioners and 413 Medical Assistants in the medical office setting;
e Based on the average wages for General and Operational Managers in the hospital setting;
f Based on the average wages for General and Operational Managers in the medical office setting;
g Based on the weighted average wages for 40 Physician and Surgeons (29–10692; $88.78), 40 Registered Nurses (29–1111; $33.23), 20 Social Workers (21–1022; $24.28), 20 Health Educators (21–1091, $25.07), and 20 Patients (00–0000; $21.74);
h Based on the weighted average wages for 4 Physician and Surgeons, 4 Registered Nurses, 2 Social Workers, 2 Health Educators, and 6 Patients;
i Based on the weighted average wages for 50 Physician and Surgeons in the hospital setting and 50 Family and General Practitioners in the
medical office setting;
Estimated Annual Costs to the Federal
Government
Exhibit 3 shows the estimated total
and annualized cost to the government
for this data collection. Although data
collection will last for less than one
year, the entire project will take about
2 years. The total cost for the three
surveys is approximately is $1,001,202.
EXHIBIT 3—ESTIMATED TOTAL AND ANNUALIZED COST
Cost component
Total cost
Annualized
cost
Project Development ...............................................................................................................................................
Data Collection Activities .........................................................................................................................................
Data Processing and Analysis .................................................................................................................................
Publication of Results ..............................................................................................................................................
Project Management ................................................................................................................................................
Overhead .................................................................................................................................................................
$273,838
153,119
171,764
14,753
10,032
377,696
$136,919
76,560
85,882
7,377
5,016
188,848
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
1,001,202
500,601
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Request for Comments
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s
information collection are requested
with regard to any of the following: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of AHRQ health care
research and health care information
dissemination functions, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including
hours and costs) of the proposed
collection(s) of information; (c) ways to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:54 Apr 17, 2013
Jkt 229001
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information upon the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
included in the Agency’s subsequent
request for OMB approval of the
proposed information collection. All
comments will become a matter of
public record.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Dated: April 8, 2013.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–08946 Filed 4–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–90–M
E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM
18APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23256-23259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08946]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the intention of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection
project: ``Pilot Test of the Proposed Value and Efficiency Surveys and
Communicating with Patients Checklist.'' In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public
to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in
the Federal Register on January 7th, 2013 and allowed 60 days for
public comment. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice
is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by May 20, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk
Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by
email at OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov (attention: AHRQ's desk officer).
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection
instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be
obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Project
Pilot Test of the Proposed Value and Efficiency Surveys and
Communicating With Patients Checklist
Maximizing value within the American health care system is an
important priority. Value is often viewed as a combination of high
quality, high efficiency care, and there is general agreement by
consumers, policy makers, payers, and providers that it is lacking in
the U.S. A recent report by the Institute of Medicine estimated that 20
to 30 percent ($765 billion a year) of U.S. healthcare spending was
inefficient and could be reduced without lowering quality.
Multiple overlapping initiatives are currently seeking to improve
value using a variety of approaches. Public reporting efforts led by
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), other payers and
consumer groups seek to enable consumers to make more informed choices
about the quality, and in some cases, the costs of their care. A
variety of demonstration projects and payment reforms initiated by CMS
and private insurers are attempting to more closely link care quality
with payments to create incentives for higher value care. And national
improvement initiatives led by AHRQ (comprehensive unit-based safety
programs [CUSP] for central line-associated blood stream infection
[CLABSI], catheter-associated urinary tract infections [CUTI], and
surgical units [SUSP]) and CMS (hospital engagement networks, QIO
scopes of work) are seeking to raise care quality and reduce
readmissions. Results from the CUSP-CLABSI project have demonstrated
that central line infections can be reduced and unnecessary costs can
be avoided across the health care system by concerted, unit-based
improvement efforts.
As a systems level example, Denver Health, with initial funding
from AHRQ, has taken major steps towards redesigning clinical and
administrative processes so as to reduce staff time, patient waiting,
and unnecessary costs. These improvements occurred without harm to
quality and in some instances actually improved quality.
In many cases, improving quality improves efficiency naturally.
Reducing the number of hospital errors, for example, will reduce costs
associated with longer length of stay or error-triggered readmissions.
It is more cost-effective to do things right the first time. But higher
value may be more likely if organizations doing quality improvement
link efforts to improve care quality with efforts to reduce unnecessary
costs. AHRQ understands that many of the root causes of inefficiencies
that drive up costs are closely linked to root causes of inefficiencies
that lead to poor quality, uncoordinated care where redundancies and
system failures place patients at risk. Enhancing value in healthcare
[[Page 23257]]
requires understanding the contribution that organizational culture
makes to value and working to foster a culture where high value is a
cultural norm.\1\ AHRQ's development of the Hospital Survey on Patient
Safety Culture (HSOPS) has contributed greatly to efforts to promote
the important role culture plays in providing safe care. HSOPS is used
extensively in national improvement campaigns and many hospitals and
health systems now regularly assess their safety cultures and use
culture scores on organizational dashboards and as parts of variable
compensation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (refers to 2nd paragraph in page 3) According to Pronovost
and Sexton (Assessing Safety Culture: Guidelines and
Recommendations, Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14:231-23),
``Definitions of culture commonly refer to values, attitudes, norms,
beliefs, practices, policies, and behaviors of personnel. In
essence, culture is `the way we do things around here'.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If organizations lack cultures committed to value then discrete
efforts to raise dimensions of value are likely to yield limited and
unsustainable results. And if organizational leaders have no plausible
way to know whether their organizational culture is committed to value,
then their ability to make value a higher organizational priority will
be very limited. Thus, developing value and efficiency survey
instruments for hospitals and medical offices fills an important need
for many ongoing and planned efforts to foster greater value within
American health care.
Given the widespread impact of cost and waste in health care, AHRQ
will develop the Value and Efficiency (VE) Surveys for hospitals and
medical offices. These surveys will measure staff perceptions about
what is important in their organization and what attitudes and
behaviors related to value and efficiency are supported, rewarded, and
expected. The surveys will help hospitals and medical offices to
identify and discuss strengths and weaknesses within their individual
organizations. They can then use that knowledge to develop appropriate
action plans to improve their value and efficiency. To develop these
tools AHRQ will recruit medical staff from 42 hospitals and 96 medical
offices to participate in cognitive testing and pretesting.
In addition to the VE surveys, AHRQ also intends to develop and
test the feasibility and utility of a Patient Communication Checklist.
Patients are demanding greater clarity into the costs of health care
and what they can do about affordability problems. While there is
recent interest in making health care prices more transparent for
consumers (e.g., the Health Care Price Transparency Promotion Act of
2013 (H.R. 1326)), physician communication with patients about the cost
of care will be a key component to attaining high-value, high-quality
care from a patient perspective. To aid physicians, this proposal will
develop a consumer value (CV) checklist. Physician checklists have been
instrumental in many quality improvements, such as with AHRQ's
reduction in central line-associated blood stream infections [CLABSI]
(See Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto, Metropolitan Books, 2009).
Checklists have also reduced surgical complications by preventing
miscommunication during complex procedures. Similarly, checklists could
potentially facilitate communication between clinicians and patients in
complex discussions about patient preferences, quality, value, and out-
of-pocket costs. The objective of the CV checklist is to facilitate
shared decision-making, and also engage physician and patients in joint
problem solving. For example, if discussions emanating from use of a
checklist show that the patient is not likely to fill a critical
prescription for financial reasons, this could trigger a discussion of
generic substitutes or state or other subsidies available. Since the
proper goal for any health care delivery system is to improve the
quality and value of care delivered to patients, such a tool will bring
the patient perspective on value into the decision-making about their
care.
The CV checklist will address three major topics: who should talk
with patients about preferences and value issues (e.g., nurses,
physicians, etc.), when should these conversations occur (e.g., when
patients may incur costs, when they express financial concerns, etc.),
and how can clinicians prepare for and effectively facilitate such
discussions.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Develop, cognitively test and modify as necessary the VE
surveys (one for hospitals and one for medical offices);
(2) Pretest the VE surveys in hospitals and medical offices and
modify as necessary based on the results;
(3) Develop, cognitively test and modify as necessary the
checklist;
(4) Seek consumer/patient input on the potential value of the
checklist;
(5) Pretest the checklist in hospitals and medical offices and
either drop or modify as necessary based on patient and clinician views
of the results;
(6) Make the final VE surveys and checklist available for use by
the public.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor,
Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET), and subcontractor, Westat,
pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research
on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including
activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency,
appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to
quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
Method of Collection
To achieve these goals the following activities and data
collections will be implemented:
(1) Cognitive interviews for the YE surveys. One round of
interviews on the VE surveys will be conducted by telephone with 9
respondents from hospitals and 9 respondents from medical offices. The
purpose of these interviews is to understand the cognitive processes
the respondent engages in when answering a question on the VE survey
and to refine the survey's items and composites. These interviews will
be conducted with a mix of senior leaders and clinical staff (i.e.,
unit/department managers, practitioners, nurses, technicians, and
medical assistants) from hospitals and medical offices throughout the
U.S. with varying characteristics (e.g., size, geographic location,
type of medical office practice/hospital, and possibly extent of
experience with waste-reduction efforts).
(2) Pretest for the VE surveys. The surveys will be pretested with
senior leaders and clinical staff from 42 hospitals and 96 medical
offices. The purpose of the pretest is to collect data for an
assessment of the reliability and construct validity of the surveys'
items and composites, allowing for their further refinement. A site-
level point-of-contact (POC) will be recruited in each medical office
and hospital to manage the data collection at that organization
(compiles sample information, distribute surveys, promote survey
response, etc.). Exhibit 1 includes a burden estimate for the POC's
time to manage the data collection.
(3) Medical office information form. This form will be completed by
the medical office manager in each of the 96 medical office pretest
sites to provide background characteristics, such as type of
specialty(s) and majority ownership. A hospital information form will
not be needed because characteristics on pretest hospitals will be
obtained from the American Hospital Association's (AHA) data set based
on a hospital's AHA ID number.
(4) Survey to identify items for CV checklist. In order to identify
items to
[[Page 23258]]
put on the checklist, a survey will be developed and sent to 160
representative participants (40 Physicians, 40 Registered Nurses, 20
Social Workers, 20 Health Educators, and 40 Patients). Once the survey
responses have been collected, responses will be analyzed to help
inform the development of the CV checklist. Checklist items will be
chosen based on what is learned. For example, if clinicians strongly
believe that it is inappropriate to discuss costs and value with
patients, the checklist may require different items than if clinicians
recognize the importance of such conversations but believe they lack
required information to facilitate them.
(5) Cognitive Interviews for the CV checklist. Once checklist items
have been identified, cognitive interviews will be conducted with 9
respondents in hospitals and 9 respondents in medical offices to
understand the cognitive processes the respondent engages in when using
the CV checklist. Cognitive interviewing will allow checklist
developers to identify and classify difficulties respondents may have
regarding checklist items. To get different perspectives, interviews
will be conducted with a mix of physicians, nurses, social workers,
health educators, and patients in hospitals and medical offices.
(6) Pretest the CV checklist. The checklist will then be pretested
to solicit feedback from 50 physicians in hospitals and 50 physicians
in medical offices. The pilot testing process will help identify areas
where users of the checklist have trouble understanding, learning, and
using the checklist. It also provides the opportunity to identify
issues that can prevent successful deployment of the checklist.
(7) Dissemination activities. The final VE Surveys and CV checklist
will be made available to the public through the AHRQ Web site. This
activity does not impose a burden on the public and is therefore not
included in the burden estimates in Exhibit 1.
The information collected will be used to test and improve the
draft survey items in the VE Surveys and CV checklist.
The final VE instruments will be made available to the public for
use in hospitals and medical offices to assess value and efficiency
from the perspectives of their staff. The survey can be used by
hospitals and medical offices to identify areas for improvement.
Researchers are also likely to use the surveys to assess the impact of
hospitals' and medical offices' value and efficiency improvement
initiatives.
The final CV checklist will be made available to hospital and
medical office clinicians to aid in having conversations with patients
about value.
Estimated Annual Respondent Burden
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the
respondents' time to participate in this research. Cognitive interviews
for the Hospital VE survey will be conducted with 9 hospital staff
(approximately 3 managers, 3 nurses, and 3 technicians) and will take
about one hour and 30 minutes to complete. Cognitive interviews for the
Medical Office VE survey will be conducted with 9 medical office staff
(approximately 4 physicians and 5 medical assistants) and will take
about one hour and 30 minutes to complete. The Hospital VE survey will
be administered to about 4,032 individuals from 42 hospitals (about 96
surveys per hospital) and requires 15 minutes to complete. A site-level
POC will spend approximately 16 hours administering the Hospital VE
survey. The Medical Office VE survey will be administered to about 504
individuals from 96 medical offices (about 5 surveys per medical
office) and requires 15 minutes to complete. A site-level POC will
spend approximately 6 hours administering the Medical Office VE survey.
The medical office information form survey will be completed by a
medical office manager at each of the 96 medical offices participating
in the pretest and takes 10 minutes to complete.
One-hundred and sixty individuals (40 physicians, 40 nurses, 20
social workers, 20 health educators, and 40 patients) will participate
in the survey to identify items for the CV checklist and will take 15
minutes to complete. Cognitive interviews for the CV checklist will be
conducted with 18 individuals (9 in hospitals and 9 in medical offices,
consisting of approximately 4 physicians, 4 nurses, 2 social workers, 2
health educators, and 6 patients) and will take about one hour to
complete. One hundred physicians will participate in the pretest of the
CV checklist (50 in hospitals and 50 in medical offices). The total
burden is estimated to be 2,534 hours annually.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated
with the respondents' time to participate in this research. The total
cost burden is estimated to be $115,559 annually.
Exhibit 1--Estimated Annualized Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Form name Number of resonses per Hours per Total burden
respondents resondent response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interviews for the Hospital VE survey 9 1 1.5 14
Cognitive interviews for the Medical Office VE 9 1 1.5 14
survey........................................
Pretest for the Hospital VE survey............. 4,032 1 15/60 1,008
Pretest for the Medical Office VE survey....... 504 1 15/60 126
POC Administration of the Hospital VE survey... 42 1 16 672
POC Administration of the Medical Office VE 96 1 6 576
survey........................................
Medical office information form................ 96 1 10/60 16
Survey to identify items for CV checklist...... 160 1 15/60 40
Cognitive interviews for the CV checklist...... 18 1 1 18
Pretest for the CV checklist................... 100 1 30/60 50
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 5,066 na na 2,534
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23259]]
Exhibit 2--Estimated Annualized Cost Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Form name Number of Total burden hourly wage Total cost
respondents hours rate* burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interviews for the Hospital VE survey. 9 14 \a\$36.16 $506
Cognitive interviews for the Medical Office VE 9 14 \b\46.87 656
survey.........................................
Pretest for the Hospital VE survey.............. 4,032 1,008 \c\36.02 36,308
Pretest for the Medical Office VE survey........ 504 126 \d\27.73 3,494
Administration of the Hospital VE survey........ 42 672 \e\55.80 37,498
Administration of the Medical Office VE survey.. 96 576 \f\50.98 29,364
Medical office information form................. 96 16 \f\50.98 816
Survey to identify items for CV checklist....... 160 40 \g\45.02 1,801
Cognitive interviews for the CV checklist....... 18 18 \h\39.84 717
Pretest for the CV checklist.................... 100 50 \i\87.98 399
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 5,066 2,534 na 115,559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates in the United States, May 2011, ``U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics'' (available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_621100.htm [for
medical office setting] and https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_622100.htm [for hospital setting]).
\a\ Based on the weighted average wages for 3 Registered Nurses (29-1111, $33.56), 3 Medical and Clinical
Laboratory Technicians (29-2012, $19.11), and 3 General and Operational Managers (11-1021, $55.80) in the
hospital setting;
\b\ Based on the weighted average wages for 4 Family and General Practitioners (29-1062; $87.18) and 5 Medical
Assistants (31-9092, $14.63) in the medical office setting;
\c\ Based on the weighted average wages for 1,937 Registered Nurses, 1,131 Medical and Clinical Laboratory
Technicians, 526 General and Operational Managers and 446 Physicians (29-1069; $66.23) in the hospital
setting;
\d\ Based on the weighted average wages for 91 Family and General Practitioners and 413 Medical Assistants in
the medical office setting;
\e\ Based on the average wages for General and Operational Managers in the hospital setting;
\f\ Based on the average wages for General and Operational Managers in the medical office setting;
\g\ Based on the weighted average wages for 40 Physician and Surgeons (29-10692; $88.78), 40 Registered Nurses
(29-1111; $33.23), 20 Social Workers (21-1022; $24.28), 20 Health Educators (21-1091, $25.07), and 20 Patients
(00-0000; $21.74);
\h\ Based on the weighted average wages for 4 Physician and Surgeons, 4 Registered Nurses, 2 Social Workers, 2
Health Educators, and 6 Patients;
\i\ Based on the weighted average wages for 50 Physician and Surgeons in the hospital setting and 50 Family and
General Practitioners in the medical office setting;
Estimated Annual Costs to the Federal Government
Exhibit 3 shows the estimated total and annualized cost to the
government for this data collection. Although data collection will last
for less than one year, the entire project will take about 2 years. The
total cost for the three surveys is approximately is $1,001,202.
Exhibit 3--Estimated Total and Annualized Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Cost component Total cost cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Development..................... $273,838 $136,919
Data Collection Activities.............. 153,119 76,560
Data Processing and Analysis............ 171,764 85,882
Publication of Results.................. 14,753 7,377
Project Management...................... 10,032 5,016
Overhead................................ 377,696 188,848
-------------------------------
Total............................... 1,001,202 500,601
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Comments
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's
information collection are requested with regard to any of the
following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and
health care information dissemination functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's
estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed
collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized
and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the
proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of
public record.
Dated: April 8, 2013.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-08946 Filed 4-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
