Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Clinical Quality Measure Exchange is Not Easy

Robert L. Phillips, Lars Peterson, Ted E. Palen, Scott A. Fields, Michael L. Parchman and John Johannides
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2021, 19 (3) 207-211; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2649
Robert L. Phillips
1American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky
MD, MSPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: bphillips@theabfm.org
Lars Peterson
1American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ted E. Palen
2Colorado Permanente Medical Group, Institute for Health Research, Aurora, Colorado
PhD, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott A. Fields
3OCHIN, Portland, Oregon
MD, MHA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael L. Parchman
4Kaiser Permanente of Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Johannides
1American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky
PMP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

The Article in Brief

Clinical Quality Measure Exchange Is Not Easy


Robert L. Phillips, Jr , and colleagues

Background Family physicians provide nearly 20% of all clinical outpatient visits, translating to 200 million visits in the U.S. annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Frontline clinicians continue to report failures of certified electronic health records (EHRs) to meet federal certification requirements and electronic reporting needs.


What This Study Found Researchers created the Trial of Aggregate Data Exchange for Maintenance of certification and Raising Quality, a randomized controlled trial, to assess whether quality measure reporting could be made a byproduct of clinical care and quality improvement. They recruited family physicians from four health systems. A total of 256 family physicians participated. Of 19 measures negotiated for use, five were used by all systems. The researchers identified 15 types of errors, including breaks in data delivery; changes in measures; and nonsensical measure results. Only one system had no identified errors.
 
The study concluded that the secure transfer of standardized, physician-level quality measures from the four health systems, despite their having mature processes in place, proved difficult. There were many errors that required human intervention and manual repair, which precluded full automation.


Implications    

  • The study reconfirms that despite widespread health information technology adoption and federally meaningful use policies, health care remains far from reaching its goals of making clinical quality reporting a reliable byproduct of care.
 
      

  View article

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine