We examined associations between health information technology (HIT) capacity at FQHCs and quality of care, measured by the receipt of discharge summary, frequency of patients receiving reminders/notifications for preventive care/follow-up care, and timely appointment for specialty care.
Examples from the literature show that in the US, while less than 5% of respondents with diabetes from the 1994 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) met all five standards of care [ 12], approximately one out of four similar patients received adequate care as measured by the receipt of nine out of eleven diabetes care processes in 2009 [ 8].
FQHCs with higher HIT capacity were significantly more likely to have improved quality of care, measured by the receipt of discharge summaries (OR=1.43; CI=1.01, 2.40), the use of a patient notification system for preventive and follow-up care (OR=1.74; CI=1.2.452.45), and timely appointment for specialty care (OR=1.77; CI=1.2.532.53).
Cox proportional hazard models were used to measure the association between receipt of appropriate empiric therapy and in-hospital mortality, statistically adjusting for patient and pathogen characteristics.
Earlier this year, Receiptful conducted a study that sought to measure the ROI of email receipts.
Then, participants' information on endoscopy testing was collected by asking these two questions: "Have you ever had either of these exams?" and "How long has it been since you had your last sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy?" From this information, we defined the outcome as a dichotomous (yes/no) measure of the receipt of an endoscopy CRC screening test in the past year.
Four functional characteristics that were related to pollinia transfer and receipt were measured: the height (distance between the rostellum and the surface of the middle lobe), width (distance between the two lateral lobes of the lip at the entrance of the passage), depth (distance between the entrance and lip claw), and the distance between the stigma and surface of the lip.
The stakeholders acknowledged that guidelines and high-quality evidence might be lacking for measurement of some of the candidate KPIs (e.g., measuring time from receipt of referral to completion, or measuring patient or provider experience with centralized intake).
This domain measures the proportion of the population in each area experiencing income deprivation as measured by receipt of means-tested benefits and support from the government (Table 1).
