Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleSpecial Communication

Clinical Quality Measures: A Challenge for–and to–Family Physicians

Alan Drabkin, Ronald N. Adler, Wayne Altman, Alan M. Ehrlich, Alicia Agnoli and Brian S. Alper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine March 2022, 35 (2) 427-434; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2022.02.210294
Alan Drabkin
From Tufts University School of Medicine (AD, WA); Harvard Medical School (AD); University of Massachusetts Medical School (RA, AME); University of California Davis School of Medicine (AA); and Computable Publishing, Ipswich, MA (BSA).
MD, FAAFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ronald N. Adler
From Tufts University School of Medicine (AD, WA); Harvard Medical School (AD); University of Massachusetts Medical School (RA, AME); University of California Davis School of Medicine (AA); and Computable Publishing, Ipswich, MA (BSA).
MD, FAAFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wayne Altman
From Tufts University School of Medicine (AD, WA); Harvard Medical School (AD); University of Massachusetts Medical School (RA, AME); University of California Davis School of Medicine (AA); and Computable Publishing, Ipswich, MA (BSA).
MD, FAAFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alan M. Ehrlich
From Tufts University School of Medicine (AD, WA); Harvard Medical School (AD); University of Massachusetts Medical School (RA, AME); University of California Davis School of Medicine (AA); and Computable Publishing, Ipswich, MA (BSA).
MD, FAAFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alicia Agnoli
From Tufts University School of Medicine (AD, WA); Harvard Medical School (AD); University of Massachusetts Medical School (RA, AME); University of California Davis School of Medicine (AA); and Computable Publishing, Ipswich, MA (BSA).
MD, MPH, MHS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian S. Alper
From Tufts University School of Medicine (AD, WA); Harvard Medical School (AD); University of Massachusetts Medical School (RA, AME); University of California Davis School of Medicine (AA); and Computable Publishing, Ipswich, MA (BSA).
MD, MSPH, FAAFP, FAMIA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Criteria for Evaluation of Appropriateness of Clinical Quality Measures

    Does it matter to patients?1. Patient-oriented outcome: For an outcome measure, the outcome is important to patients (improves quality or quantity of life). For a process measure, the action is likely to lead to an outcome that is important to patients.
    2. Autonomy preserved (shared decision-making): Patient autonomy is preserved for decisions in which reasonable, informed patients may make different choices.
    Is it appropriately specified?3. Denominator specification: The population is clearly and adequately specified with appropriate exclusion criteria and assessment method.
    4. Numerator specification: The outcome being measured is clearly and adequately specified with appropriate timeframe and assessment method.
    Is there sufficient evidence that benefitsoutweigh harms and costs?5. Certainty of net benefit: There is sufficient evidence that the action(s) proposed by the quality measure generate desirable consequences that outweigh undesirable consequences.
    6. Measure implementation improves outcomes: There is sufficient evidence that actual implementation of the measure will lead to desirable consequences that outweigh undesirable consequences.
    7. Resource use: Measure implementation is likely to produce net benefits that justify the resources (human, material, and financial) expended on its implementation (care provision, measurement, and reporting).
    Does the measure assess quality, independent of significant confounding factors?8. Gaming resistance: Measure implementation is unlikely to motivate a significant number of healthcare providers to change their patient selection, clinical decision-making behavior, or reporting in ways that improve measure performance without improving health outcomes if the measure is implemented.
    9. Locus of control: The entity for whom the quality of care is being measured can have sufficient authority, influence, or capacity to affect performance on the quality measure.
    10. Social determinants of health: Social determinants of health of the population served do not unduly influence performance on the measure.
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Appropriateness Ratings of 24 Measures

    NameDescriptionAppropriateness EvaluationCriteria NotSatisfiedACP Review
    Controlling High Blood PressureThe percentage of members 18 to 85 years of age who had a diagnosis of hypertension (HTN) and whose BP was adequately controlled (<140/90 mm Hg) during the measurement yearNot Appropriate2, 3, 5Uncertain validity
    Comprehensive Diabetes Care: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) Poor Control (>9.0%)Percentage of patients 18 to 75 years of age with diabetes who had hemoglobin A1c > 9.0% during the measurement periodAppropriateUncertain validity
    CG-CAHPS (MHQP Version)Composites: Getting Timely Appointments, Care, and Information; How Well Providers Communicate; Providers' Use of Information to Coordinate Patient Care, Helpful, Courteous, and Respectful Office Staff; Patient's Rating of ProviderAppropriateNot rated
    Depression Screening and Follow-Up for Adolescents and AdultsPercentage of members 12 years of age and older who were screened for clinical depression using a standardized tool and, if screened positive, who received follow-up care.
    • Depression Screening. The percentage of members who were screened for clinical depression using a standardized tool.
    • Follow-Up on Positive Screen. The percentage of members who screened positive for depression and received follow-up care within 30 days.
    AppropriateUncertain validity
    Depression Remission at Six or Twelve MonthsAdult patients age 18 and older with major depression or dysthymia and an initial PHQ-9 score > 9 who demonstrate remission at six or twelve months defined as a PHQ-9 score less than 5. This measure applies to patients with both newly diagnosed and existing depression whose current PHQ-9 score indicates a need for treatment.Not Appropriate4Not rated
    Depression Remission and Response for Adolescents and AdultsAdult patients age 18 and older with major depression or dysthymia and an initial PHQ-9 score > 9 who demonstrate remission at six or twelve months defined as a PHQ-9 score less than 5.Not Appropriate4Not rated
    Depression Response at Six or Twelve Months - Progress Toward RemissionAdult patients age 18 and older with major depression or dysthymia and an initial PHQ-9 score > 9 who demonstrate a response to treatment at six or twelve months defined as a PHQ-9 score that is reduced by 50% or greater from the initial PHQ-9 score.AppropriateNot rated
    Initiation and Engagement of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse or Dependence TreatmentPercentage of adolescent and adult patients with a new episode of alcohol or other drug (AOD) dependence who received appropriate follow-up care:
    • Initiation of AOD Treatment. The percentage of patients who initiate treatment through an inpatient AOD admission, outpatient visit, intensive outpatient encounter or partial hospitalization within 14 days of the diagnosis.
    • Engagement of AOD Treatment. The percentage of patients who initiated treatment and who had two or more additional services with a diagnosis of AOD within 30 days of the initiation visit
    Not appropriate4,9Not rated
    Childhood Immunization Status (Combo 10)Percentage of children that turned 2 years old during the measurement year and had specific vaccines by their second birthdayAppropriateNot rated
    Immunizations for Adolescents (Combo 2)Percentage of adolescents that turned 13 years old during the measurement year and had specific vaccines by their 13th birthdayAppropriateNot rated
    Influenza ImmunizationPercentage of patients aged 6 months and older seen for a visit between October 1 and March 31 who received an influenza immunization OR who reported previous receipt of an influenza immunizationAppropriateValid
    Chlamydia Screening - Ages 16 to 24Percentage of women ages 16 to 24 that were identified as sexually active and had at least one test for Chlamydia during the measurement yearAppropriateValid
    Colorectal Cancer ScreeningPercentage of adults 50 to 75 years of age who had appropriate screening for colorectal cancerAppropriateValid
    Breast Cancer ScreeningPercentage of women 50 to 74 years of age who had a mammogram to screen for breast cancerNot Appropriate2,5Valid
    Cervical Cancer ScreeningPercentage of women 21 to 64 years of age, who received one or more Pap tests to screen for cervical cancerAppropriateValid
    Asthma Medication RatioPercentage of patients 5 to 64 years of age who were identified as having persistent asthma and had a ratio of controller medications to total asthma medications of 0.50 or greater during the measurement yearAppropriateNot rated*
    Comprehensive Diabetes Care: Eye ExamPercentage of patients 18 to 75 years of age with diabetes who had a retinal or dilated eye exam by an eye care professional during the measurement period or a negative retinal exam (no evidence of retinopathy) in the 12 months before the measurement periodAppropriateNot rated
    Comprehensive Diabetes Care: Blood Pressure Control (<140/90 mm Hg)Percentage of members 18 to 75 years of age with diabetes (type 1 and type 2) whose most recent blood pressure (BP) reading is < 140/90 mm Hg during the measurement yearNot Appropriate2,3,5Uncertain validity
    Child and Adolescent Major Depressive Disorder: Suicide Risk AssessmentPercentage of patient visits for those patients aged 6 through 17 years with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with an assessment for suicide riskAppropriateNot rated
    Follow-Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness (30-Day)Percentage of discharges for members 6 years of age and older who were hospitalized for treatment of selected mental health disorders and who had an OP visit, an intensive OP encounter, or partial hospitalization with a mental health practitioner. Two rates are reported (1) the percentage of members who received follow-up within 30 days of discharge, 2) the percent of members who received follow-up within 7 days of dischargeAppropriate at system level of application but Not Appropriate at individual practitioner levelNot rated
    Follow-Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness (7-Day)Percentage of discharges for members 6 years of age and older who were hospitalized for treatment of selected mental health disorders and who had an OP visit, an intensive OP encounter, or partial hospitalization with a mental health practitioner. Two rates are reported: 1) the percentage of members who received follow-up within 30 days of discharge, 2) the percent of members who received follow-up within 7 days of dischargeAppropriate at system level of application but Not Appropriate at individual practitioner levelNot rated
    Follow-up After Emergency Department Visit for Mental Health (7-Day)The percentage of emergency department (ED) visits for members 6 years of age and older with a principal diagnosis of mental illness, who had a follow-up visit for mental illness. Two rates are reported:1. The percentage of ED visits for which the member received follow-up within 30 days of the ED visit (31 total days).2. The percentage of ED visits for which the member received follow-up within 7 days of the ED visit (8 total days).Appropriate at system level of application but Not Appropriate at individual practitioner levelNot rated
    Continuity of Pharmaco- therapy for Opioid Use DisorderPercentage of adults 18 to 64 years of age with pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (OUD) who have at least 180 days of continuous treatmentAppropriateNot rated
    Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back PainPercentage of patients 18 to 50 years of age with a diagnosis of low back pain who did not have an imaging study (plain Radiograph, MRI, CT scan) within 28 days of the diagnosisAppropriateValid
    *Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) measure 444 is an alternative, and is rated Valid by the ACP
    Criteria not satisfied (from Table 1)
        2. Autonomy not preserved
        3. Denominator not appropriately specified
        4. Numerator not appropriately specified
        5. Benefits do not clearly outweigh harms
        9. Confounders such as Locus of Control
    • Abbreviations: PHQ, patient health questionnaire; OUD, opioid use disorder; AOD, alcohol or other drug dependence; ACP, american college of physicians.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 35 (2)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 35, Issue 2
March/April 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical Quality Measures: A Challenge for–and to–Family Physicians
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
16 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Clinical Quality Measures: A Challenge for–and to–Family Physicians
Alan Drabkin, Ronald N. Adler, Wayne Altman, Alan M. Ehrlich, Alicia Agnoli, Brian S. Alper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2022, 35 (2) 427-434; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2022.02.210294

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Clinical Quality Measures: A Challenge for–and to–Family Physicians
Alan Drabkin, Ronald N. Adler, Wayne Altman, Alan M. Ehrlich, Alicia Agnoli, Brian S. Alper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2022, 35 (2) 427-434; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2022.02.210294
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • This Issue's Emphasis: Inequity and COVID-19, Intertwined
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • In Defense of Generalists: Primary Care Observations Have Systematic Advantages
  • Looking Back to Move Forward: Reflections of PBRN Directors
  • Building a Primary Care Research Agenda for Latino Populations in the Setting of the Latino Paradox: A Report from the 2023 Latino Primary Care Summit
Show more Special Communication

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Family Medicine
  • Massachusetts
  • Pay for Performance
  • Quality of Health Care

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire