The CSP has validity as a screen for most surgical complications but only for 1 medical complication. The CSP does not have validity as a "stand-alone" tool to identify more than a few in-hospital surgery-related events. The addition of an indicator to the Medicare claim to capture the timing of secondary diagnoses would improve the validity of the CSP for identifying both surgical and medical in-hospital events.

Our findings raise questions about whether the clinical conditions represented by ICD-9-CM codes used by the Complications Screening Program were in fact always present. These findings highlight concerns about the clinical validity of using ICD-9-CM codes for quality monitoring.

There is widespread interest throughout the mental health system in routine quality assessment to facilitate quality improvement, oversight, purchasing, and consumer choice. In the absence of agreement on a limited number of meaningful and feasible quality measures, delivery systems, payers, managed care organizations, regulators, and accreditors have each implemented unique measures and specifications. The resulting heterogeneity among measures has increased the burden on providers, limited the comparability of results, and hindered efforts to focus limited resources on further development of the most promising measures. Policy makers have initiated efforts for stakeholders to reach consensus on a core set of measures for common use, but barriers to progress remain, including differences in stakeholder needs and trade-offs between prioritizing desirable attributes of measures and representing the mental health system broadly. The authors present a framework for the selection of a core set of measures, clarify divergent perspectives, and make recommendations for further development of core quality measures for mental health care.

For some types of complications, screening administrative data may offer an efficient approach for identifying potentially problematic cases for physician review. Understanding the basis for physicians' judgments about quality requires more investigation.

Combining opinion from expert panels is becoming a more common method of selecting criteria to define quality of health care. The Rand Corporation pioneered this method is the 1950s and 1960s in the context of forecasting technological events. Since then, numerous organizations have adopted the methodology to develop local and national policy. In the context of quality of care, opinion is typically elicited from a sample of experts regarding the appropriateness or importance of a medical treatment for several well-defined clinical cohorts. The information from the experts is then combined in order to create a standard or performance measure of care. This article describes how to use the panel process to elicit information from diverse panels of experts. Methods are demonstrated using the data from five distinct panels convened as part of the Harvard Q-SPAN-CD study, a nationally-funded project whose goal is to identify a set of cardiovascular-related performance measures.