2009
DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181b4c3ad
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pay for performance in critical care: An executive summary of the position paper by the Society of Critical Care Medicine*

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on previous estimates, the cost of manual data collection for this cohort would approach $2 million and, even with these resources, would not provide cost-effective ways to risk-adjust future populations (8). These limitations can have important implications for interhospital comparisons as well as national efforts aimed at linking incentives with measures of performance (37,38). The eSAPS3 model is currently being prepared to prospectively provide risk This study also highlights the need to develop electronic tools that can be shared freely across healthcare systems and international networks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Based on previous estimates, the cost of manual data collection for this cohort would approach $2 million and, even with these resources, would not provide cost-effective ways to risk-adjust future populations (8). These limitations can have important implications for interhospital comparisons as well as national efforts aimed at linking incentives with measures of performance (37,38). The eSAPS3 model is currently being prepared to prospectively provide risk This study also highlights the need to develop electronic tools that can be shared freely across healthcare systems and international networks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…P4P efforts should also closely couple incentive targets with other quality improvement programs such as public disclosure (Egol et al ; Lindenauer et al ; Mandel and Kotogal 2006; Nahra et al ). Rosenthal et al argue that “quality‐incentive programs should be viewed as part of a broader strategy of promoting health care quality through measuring and reporting performance, providing technical assistance and evidence‐based guidelines, and, increasingly, giving consumers incentives to select higher‐quality providers and proactively manage their own health” (2004, 140).…”
Section: Lessons Learnedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[17] The report starts with a review of history of pay for performance programs, development of quality measures, and implementation of the measures by quality improvement organizations and early adoption of health information technology to facilitate the process. The report moves on with key points of a good P4P program underscoring the need for an effective incentive strategy to obtain desired results, periodic evaluation followed by adjustments as required and establishing collaborative relationships based on shared goals.…”
Section: P4p In Critical Care: Position Statements By the Society Of mentioning
confidence: 99%