{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021218343600273786, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027378507871321013, 'mean_word_length': 5.6281179138322, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Abstract 248: Developing a Specialty Specific Interventional Physician Dashboard


 Background:
 Personalized benchmarking of practice is assuming increasing importance to assure patient safety and quality, cost-effective care. Comparing performance with national and local benchmarks has value for providing feedback and opportunity for continued practice improvement to the practitioner. From a hospital and practice perspective it can be used to identify outliers and potential concerns (either system or attributable to the individual) as well as its potential uses to reduce variance, validate care, and support “value purchasing” and managed care participation.
 
 
 Objectives:
 With the input of physicians, hospital administration, and CQI personnel, a tool was developed to allow assessment of individual and aggregate physician performance. The developed tool was developed to meet both personal and institutional objectives. It had to be timely, standardized, and accurate, with available national or institutional benchmarks. Both process and outcome indicators were felt to be appropriate for inclusion. Mandated, validated and relevant data collection was given preference for inclusion (ranked in order of preference: NYS DOH angioplasty data base, NCDR data, in-house non reported data) and objective hard outcomes were given preference over more subjectively collected information. A rolling 4 quarters of data was included for statistically infrequent events to minimize outliers due to sample inadequacy. In addition to tracking process and outcome metrics, utilization was also felt to be appropriate for inclusion. The developed tool incorporated data from multiple data sets with different validation turn around times, which resulted in different reporting time intervals. A total of 38 measures were collected including : mortality, major comorbidity, quality and utilization concerns. Measures deviating from benchmarks or demonstrating substantial variance were targeted for drill down and intervention to improve care.
 
 
 Results:
 A physician dashboard was developed and applied to 18 interventionalists, permitting benchmarking of individual and overall lab performance in meeting defined process, outcome and volume metrics. The dashboard facilitates individual and system benchmarking of performance, identifies areas of concerns, provides physician feedback, and promotes process improvement. Results are highlighted in green (goal met) or red (goal not met) for rapid assessment. The developed dashboard will be displayed.
 
 
 Conclusions:
 A dashboard was created to provide timely, rapid, visible assessment of comparative physician performance. The developed tool has proven useful to both hospital administration and physicians in monitoring and improving performance. The dashboard continues to evolve with continued periodic modifications addressing specific goals and concerns.
