Open Access

Community healthcare in Israel: quality indicators 2007-2009

  • Dena H Jaffe1, 2Email author,
  • Amir Shmueli1, 2,
  • Arie Ben-Yehuda1, 3,
  • Ora Paltiel1, 2, 3,
  • Ronit Calderon1, 2,
  • Arnon D Cohen4,
  • Eran Matz5,
  • Joseph K Rosenblum6,
  • Rachel Wilf-Miron7 and
  • Orly Manor1, 2
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research20121:3

DOI: 10.1186/2045-4015-1-3

Received: 11 August 2011

Accepted: 30 January 2012

Published: 30 January 2012

Abstract

Background

The National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel (QICH) was developed to provide policy makers and consumers with information on the quality of community healthcare in Israel. In what follows we present the most recent results of the QICH indicator set for 2009 and an examination of changes that have occurred since 2007.

Methods

Data for 28 quality indicators were collected from all four health plans in Israel for the years 2007-2009. The QICH indicator set examined six areas of healthcare: asthma, cancer screening, cardiovascular health, child health, diabetes and immunizations for older adults.

Results

Dramatic increases in the documentation of anthropometric measures were observed over the measurement period. Documentation of BMI for adolescents and adults increased by 30 percentage points, reaching rates of 61% and 70%, respectively, in 2009. Modest increases (3%-7%) over time were observed for other primary prevention quality measures including immunizations for older adults, cancer screening, anemia screening for young children, and documentation of cardiovascular risks. Overall, rates of recommended care for chronic diseases (asthma, cardiovascular disease and diabetes) increased over time. Changes in rates of quality care for diabetes were varied over the measurement period.

Conclusions

The overall quality of community healthcare in Israel has improved over the past three years. Future research should focus on the adherence to quality indicators in population subgroups and compare the QICH data with those in other countries. In addition, one of the next steps in assessing and further improving healthcare quality in Israel is to relate these process and performance indicators to health outcomes.

Keywords

Community healthcare indicators Israel National Health Insurance law quality QICH

Background

Performance indicators are often used to examine and quantify the various components of healthcare, such as effectiveness of care, safety, timeliness, patient-centeredness, access and efficiency [1]. Comparing indicator results between healthcare systems allows administrators and policy makers to learn "...from the many experiences of others, drawing lessons on how to finance, manage, and organize health care so as to improve health system performance" [2]. The OECD describes its Health Care Quality Indicator Project as an initiative to be used "...to understand why differences exist and what can be done to reduce those differences and improve care in all countries" [3].

In March 2004 the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research, with the support of the Health Council inaugurated the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel (QICH). This program began in 1999 as a research project by Avi Porath, Gad Rabinovitch and Anat Raskin-Segal from Ben-Gurion University. Its success has been, first and foremost, a result of the full support and cooperation of all four health plans between each other and with the program in developing, assessing and publishing the national quality indicators. Many of the QICH indicators are based on definitions from existing international measures, such as those in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) in the United States, and with the intention of international comparison. Since QICH's establishment, four national reports on the quality of healthcare in Israel have been published [47].

The primary goal of QICH is to provide policy makers and consumers with aggregate information on the quality of community healthcare in Israel in order to monitor and improve the medical care system. The QICH indicator set is based on national and international medical guidelines that reflect the current scientific evidence. Indicators are well-defined, measurable items agreed upon by all stakeholders including health plans and professional organizations. Data are systematically collected for the entire population of Israel from all four health plans to create national-level healthcare quality indicators that are publically reported. In what follows is an overview of the results of the most recent QICH report with specific attention to changes over time and implications to the primary healthcare system in Israel.

Methods

Data source

Data for quality indicators are collected independently by each of the four health plans for their insured population. Each health plan maintains individual-level electronic data records that include medical appointments, procedures, laboratory test results and pharmacy claims. Quality indicators sent by each of the four health plans are aggregated and these values (numerators and denominators) are used to calculate national rates. Coordination, data compilation, validation and quality assessment and analysis of the national indicators are performed by the program directorate.

Population

All Israeli residents are included in the data set. The quality indicators presented represent the time period 2007 through 2009. Electronic records were unavailable for a small percent of the population (< 1%). In addition, individuals whose membership in the plan was less than the full calendar year were excluded from the calculations. In 2009, for example, approximately 106,800 people or 1.4% of the insured population from the previous year switched healthcare plan [8] and did not have the required data for a complete measurement year. It is noteworthy that soldiers, largely comprised of individuals aged 18-21 years, are not covered by the health plans since their medical care is delivered by the military. Aside from these exceptions, the report includes the entirety of Israel's population, approximately seven million people.

Quality indicators and data

Quality indicators were created with the consensus of the four health plans and Israeli medical associations. The HEDIS indicator set was used as a guide for the QICH indicator definitions. The QICH indicator set reflects a careful selection process that assessed the feasibility of production and the applicability and significance of the indicators for the healthcare system in Israel. Data were collected according to gender and age group. Six areas of healthcare - asthma, cancer screening, immunizations for older adults, child health, cardiovascular health and diabetes were used to assess the quality of community healthcare in Israel. Twenty-eight QICH indicators are presented for the years 2007-2009 (Figure 1). Identification of individuals with asthma and diabetes was according to pharmacy claims. Patients with cardiovascular disease were identified according to cardiac intervention - bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty. It should be noted, that these procedures were the only available diagnostic indicators of cardiovascular disease accessible to all health plans and therefore the number of patients included in this sub-population reflect a small percentage of individuals with the disease. Immunization status was established using pharmacy claims (i.e., vaccine purchase).
Figure 1

Quality indicators of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel, 2007-2009.

Data quality assessment as well as performance audits were carried out in three stages: by each health plan, by the QICH program directorate and by an accredited external auditor. Data checks that included logical tests for negative numbers, unit tests, and valid numerator and denominator entries as well as tests examining subgroups and changes over time were performed by each health plan internally and by the QICH program directorate. An external auditor conducted a procedural audit for each health plan as well as the for the QICH directorate. A system-oriented approach to examining the proper functioning and management of the program was performed and documented in comprehensive performance reports.

Rate differences were calculated as the absolute difference in percentage points between the rate in 2007 and 2009.

Results

Table 1 provides details for the definition and calculation of each of the 28 quality indicators, the target population, measurement period and the relevant data sources.
Table 1

Definitions and data sources of the QICH indicator set, 2007-2009.

Healthcare quality indicators

Domain

Data sourcea

Target population

Asthma

   

Use of appropriate control medication for individuals with persistent asthma b

Percentage of individuals with persistent asthma who purchased at least three asthma control medications in three different months during the measurement year

Treatment

Pharmacy claims

5-56 years

Influenza vaccination for individuals with persistent asthma b

Percentage of individuals with persistent asthma who received the influenza vaccination during the winter months of the measurement year (plus two months of subsequent year)

Treatment

Pharmacy claims

5-56 years

Cancer screening

   

Breast cancer screening: Mammography

Percentage of women who had a mammogram during the past two years

Primary prevention

Test records

51-74 years

Colon cancer screening: Fecal occult blood test

Percentage of individuals who had a fecal occult blood test during the measurement yearc

Primary prevention

Laboratory results

50-74 years

Cardiovascular health

   

Blood pressure documentation

Percentage of individuals with blood pressure documentation

Primary prevention

Medical records

20-54 years - documentation during past five years;

55-74 years - documentation during measurement year

Blood pressure assessment

Percentage of individuals with adequate blood pressure control (≤ 140/90 mmHg)

Primary prevention

Medical records

20-54 years - documentation during past five years;

55-74 years - documentation during measurement year

Body mass index (BMI) documentation

• Percentage of individuals with BMI documentation - adolescents

• Percentage of individuals with BMI documentation - adults

Primary prevention

Medical records

14-18 years - documentation during past three years;

20-64 years - documentation during past five years;

65-74 years - documentation of weight during the measurement year and height during the past five years

Cholesterol documentation

Percentage of individuals with cholesterol documentation

Primary prevention

Laboratory results

35-54 years - documentation during past five years;

55-74 years - documentation during measurement year

Cholesterol assessment

Percentage of individuals with adequate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control (≤ 130 mg/dL)

Primary prevention

Laboratory results

35-54 years - documentation during past five years;

55-74 years - documentation during measurement year

Treatment with statins and other low-density lipoprotein (LDL) modifying medications following a coronary intervention d

Percentage of individuals following a coronary event who purchased at least three LDL-modifying medications in three different months during the measurement year

Treatment

Pharmacy claims, Hospital procedures

35-74 years

Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) following a coronary intervention d

Percentage of individuals following a coronary event who purchased at least three ACEI/ARB medications in three different months during the measurement year

Treatment

Pharmacy claims, Hospital procedures

35-74 years

Treatment with beta blockers following a coronary intervention d

Percentage of individuals following a coronary event who purchased at least three ACEI/ARB medications in three different months during the measurement year

Treatment

Pharmacy claims, Hospital procedures

35-74 years

Cholesterol assessment following a coronary intervention d

Percentage of individuals following a coronary event with adequate cholesterol control (≤ 100 mg/dL) during the measurement year

Effectiveness of care

Laboratory results, Hospital procedures

35-74 years

Child health

   

Anemia screening in infants

Percentage of children who had a hemoglobin test during the measurement year

Primary prevention

Laboratory results

1 year olds

Diabetes

   

Blood pressure documentation

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with blood pressure documentation during the measurement year

Treatment

Laboratory results

18+ years

Body mass index (BMI) documentation

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with BMI documentation

Treatment

Medical records

18+ years - documentation of weight during the measurement year and height over the past five years

Cholesterol documentation

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with cholesterol documentation during the measurement year

Treatment

Laboratory results

All ages

Eye care documentation

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with documentation of an eye examination during the measurement year

Treatment

Medical records

All ages

Glycemic control documentation

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with glycemic control (HbA1c) documentation during the measurement year

Treatment

Laboratory results

All ages

Kidney function documentation

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with microalbuminurea documentation during the measurement year

Treatment

Laboratory results

All ages

Influenza vaccination

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus who received the influenza vaccination during the winter months of the measurement year (plus two months of subsequent year)

Treatment

Pharmacy claims

5+ years

Blood pressure assessment

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with adequate blood pressure control (≤ 130/80 mmHg) during the measurement year

Effectiveness of care

Medical records

18+ years

Cholesterol assessment

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with adequate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control (≤ 100 mg/dL) during the measurement year

Effectiveness of care

Laboratory results

All ages

Glycemic control assessment

Percentage of diabetics with adequate glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7%) during the measurement year

Effectiveness of care

Laboratory results

All ages

Assessment of inadequate glycemic control

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c > 9%) during the measurement year

Effectiveness of care

Laboratory results

All ages

Treatment with insulin for individuals with inadequate glycemic control

Percentage of patients with diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c > 9%) and purchased insulin at least once during the measurement year

Effectiveness of care

Laboratory results, Pharmacy claims

All ages

Immunizations for older adults

   

Influenza vaccination for older adults

Percentage of older adults who received the influenza vaccination during the winter months of the measurement year (plus two months of subsequent year)

Primary prevention

Pharmacy claims

65+ years

BMI, body mass index; LDL, low density lipoproteins; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB, angiotensin receptor blockers; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; QICH, National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel

aAll data were collected from each MCO's electronic records. Numerator and denominator data for each measure were collected by the National QICH project to create the national rate.

b Persistent asthma is defined by asthma medication purchases. These medications include control medication (immunomodulators, inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene modifiers, long-acting beta-2 agonists, methylxanthines, mast cell stabilizers), as well as relief medications (short-acting beta-2 agonists, anticholinergics).

c Excluding those who underwent a colonoscopy during the past five years.

dA coronary intervention is defined as having undergone coronary artery bypass surgery or cardiac catheterization during the past five years.

Table 2 presents the changes in the quality indicators over the period 2007-2009. Both absolute and relative changes are provided in the table.
Table 2

Rates and change over time in the QICH indicator set, 2007-2009.

Healthcare quality indicators

Denominator populationa

Rates

Rate differenceb

Rate change (%)b

  

2007

2008

2009

  

Asthma

      

   Treatment: influenza vaccination for individuals with persistent asthma

51,931

29.1%

31.6%

40.0%

+10.9

37.5

   Treatment: Use of appropriate control medication for individuals with persistent asthma

51,931

76.2%

78.1%

79.7%

+3.5

4.6

Cancer

      

   Primary prevention: breast cancer screening - mammography

695,621

60.7%

64.7%

67.7%

+7.0

11.5

   Primary prevention: colon cancer screening - fecal occult blood test

1,078,021

22.1%

24.4%

27.4%

+5.3

24.0

Cardiovascular health

      

   Primary prevention: body mass index documentation (adolescents)

511,374

27.9%

46.3%

60.8%

+32.9

117.9

   Primary prevention: body mass index documentation (adults)

3,719,937

43.9%

56.6%

69.7%

+25.8

58.8

   Primary prevention: blood pressure documentation

3,755,235

72.8%

78.3%

83.5%

+10.7

14.7

   Effectiveness of care: cholesterol assessment of adequate control following cardiac intervention

56,726

68.6%

71.4%

72.1%

+3.5

5.1

   Treatment: treatment with ACEI/ARB following cardiac intervention

65,299

63.1%

64.7%

66.4%

+3.3

5.2

   Primary prevention: cholesterol documentation

2,575,726

77.4%

79.0%

80.5%

+3.1

4.0

   Primary prevention: cholesterol assessment of adequate control

2,072,458

68.9%

70.9%

71.7%

+2.8

4.1

   Treatment: treatment with beta blockers following cardiac intervention

65,299

68.4%

67.9%

70.2%

+1.8

2.6

   Primary prevention: blood pressure assessment of adequate control

3,135,531

92.9%

93.6%

94.1%

+1.2

1.3

   Treatment: treatment with statins and other LDL modifying medications following a cardiac intervention

65,299

84.2%

83.8%

84.6%

+0.4

0.5

Child health

      

   Primary prevention: anemia screening for infants

151,741

66.4%

70.5%

73.5%

+7.1

10.7

Diabetes

      

   Treatment: BMI documentation

320,275

74.4%

81.3%

83.6%

+9.2

12.4

   Effectiveness of care: treatment of inadequate glycemic control

39,514

44.8%

48.8%

53.1%

+8.2

18.5

   Treatment: influenza vaccination

332,706

47.1%

51.4%

55.0%

+7.9

16.8

   Effectiveness of care: cholesterol - adequate control

300,885

60.3%

63.7%

65.6%

+5.3

8.8

   Treatment: kidney function documentation

332,854

71.3%

70.4%

74.3%

+3.0

4.2

   Treatment: blood pressure documentation

330,437

90.0%

91.9%

91.9%

+1.9

2.1

   Effectiveness of care: blood pressure - adequate control

303,710

67.0%

68.5%

68.6%

+1.6

2.4

   Treatment: eye care documentation

332,854

63.0%

63.5%

64.3%

+1.3

2.1

   Treatment: glycemic control documentation

332,854

91.7%

91.6%

92.3%

+0.6

0.7

   Effectiveness of care: glycemic control - inadequate controlc

307,244

13.3%

13.5%

12.9%

-0.4

-3.0

   Treatment: cholesterol documentation

332,854

90.9%

90.3%

90.4%

-0.5

-0.6

   Effectiveness of care: glycemic control - adequate control

307,244

49.4%

47.9%

48.0%

-1.4

-2.8

Immunizations for older adults

      

   Primary prevention: influenza vaccination for older adults

709,755

51.9%

55.3%

56.7%

+4.8

9.2

BMI, body mass index; LDL, low density lipoproteins; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB, angiotensin receptor blockers; QICH, National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel

aThe denominator population are all eligible individuals in 2009.

bThe numbers represent absolute differences in percentage points from 2007 to 2009 or changes relative to 2007.

cDecreased rates indicates a greater quality of care.

Asthma

Rates of appropriate use of asthma control medication for individuals with persistent asthma increased over the three-year period and influenza immunization for this group increased to a rate of 40% by 2009 (absolute increase of 11%).

Cancer screening

In 2009, the mammography rate for women over 51-74 years reached 68% and fecal occult blood test rate for colon cancer (excluding those who underwent a colonoscopy during the past five years) for individuals aged 50-74 years was 27%. Absolute rate increases of 5%-7% were observed for both types of cancer screening over the three-year measurement period.

Cardiovascular health

Quality measures of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, which included BMI (adults) and blood pressure documentation, increased to rates of 70% and 84%, respectively, for the 3.8 million Israeli adult target population aged 20-74 years. Rates of cholesterol documentation and control were 81% and 72%, respectively, for Israeli adults, ages 35-74 years.

Measures of appropriate treatment and effectiveness of treatment improved over the measurement period. For example, rates of use of medications, such as beta blockers and statins, for individuals following a coronary heart event were over 70%. The rate of appropriate control of cholesterol for cardiac heart patients was 72% in 2009; this represented an absolute change during the three-year period of +3.5%.

Over the three-year measurement period, positive changes in rates for cardiovascular care were observed for all aspects of treatment - prevention, care and effectiveness of care. In particular, substantial increases were observed for documentation rates of body mass index for adolescents and adults. For adolescents, rates of documentation of height and weight increased dramatically from 28% in 2007 to 61% in 2009, while for adults, these rates rose 26 percentage points over the same time period.

Child health

An indicator of quality of healthcare for primary prevention for children was examined. In 2009, 74% of children 1-year of age underwent anemia screening - an absolute increase of 7% from 2007.

Diabetes

Quality indicators for diabetes assessed both the provision and the effectiveness of care. Patients with diabetics mellitus received basic recommended care, such as glucose, blood pressure and cholesterol assessment (> 90%), BMI documentation (84%), kidney function testing (74%) and eye care documentation (64%). Only about half the population of diabetics received an influenza immunization in the winter season. Individuals with diabetes mellitus who attained adequate glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7%) decreased slightly over the measurement period (49% to 48%) and remained stable among those with poor glycemic control (13%). The percent of individuals with diabetes mellitus who reached pre-specified cholesterol and blood pressure targets showed an increase of 5.3% and 1.6% respectively.

Immunizations for older adults

The rates of influenza vaccination, a quality indicator of preventive care among Israelis 65+ years, increased over the measurement period from 52% to 57%.

Discussion

Overall, the quality in community healthcare in Israel as measured by the QICH indicator set has improved over the past three years. Increased levels of quality of care were observed across almost all categories of health as well as type of care - primary prevention, treatment and effectiveness of care.

It should be noted that there are no set target standards for quality measures in community healthcare in Israel. Nevertheless, results from similar international indicators are used as benchmarks for comparison and learning tools for quality improvement [9]. Moreover, the QICH indicator set is based on HEDIS definitions, which strengthens the validity of the measures and encourages comparison. International comparisons are complicated, however, by numerous factors such as differences between healthcare structures and measure definitions [10, 11]. For example, variations exist between measure specifications (e.g., age limits), disease definition (e.g., based on physician diagnosis, hospital discharge data and/or pharmacy records), reporting period and data collection methods (e.g., self-reported data versus physician documentation). The HEDIS program, for instance, collects data from three different healthcare provider types - Medicaid, Medicare and commercial insurers. Differences between countries may also arise from variations in guidelines of care, type and mode of care and resources allocated for care. For example, Israel's quality indicators are used as healthcare surveillance tools while the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in England is a performance-based indicator system that rewards good practice.

Quality indicators for primary prevention

The most dramatic increases in the QICH indicator set 2007-2009 were observed for documentation of anthropometric measures. Documentation rates for height and weight for the calculation of BMI among adolescents and adults increased by approximately 30% over this time period to rates of 61% and 70%, respectively. Rates in Israel are high relative to adult BMI screening rates in the United States (e.g., 35% for Medicaid and 41% for commercially insured populations) [12].

Moderate increases over time were observed for other primary prevention QICH measures, including immunizations for older adults, cancer screening, anemia screening and documentation of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol. Comparison of these measures with those in other healthcare systems reveals wide variations in rates between countries. For example, the rate of influenza immunization for older adults in Israel in 2009 was 57%, similar to that of Ireland and Luxembourg and in contrast to higher rates in Mexico (88%) and France (71%) and lower rates in Finland (43%) and Hungary (32%) [13]. Mammography screening rates in Israel were similar to those of the OECD (68% versus 62%, respectively), although substantial variations exist between countries - high mammography rates in Finland (86%) and Ireland (78%) and low rates in France (47%) and Japan (24%) [14]. Anemia screening is not routinely conducted in most Western countries thereby preventing comparisons. Recently released guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend universal screening for anemia for children 12 months of age to determine hemoglobin concentrations for the assessment of iron deficiency [15]. This step may generate future comparisons. Finally, documentation of cardiovascular risk factors, such as cholesterol and blood pressure levels, is essential for evaluating an individual's risk of heart disease [16]. Documentation rates of these factors have increased between 4%-15% from 2007 to 2009 and likely reflect the increased attention of the healthcare system to cardiovascular risks.

Quality indicators for chronic disease

Rates of recommended care for three chronic conditions - asthma, cardiovascular disease and diabetes improved over the measurement period and are nearing those in other Western countries [12, 17]. For example, appropriate use of control medication for individuals with persistent asthma improved by four percentage points between 2007 and 2009; these rates remain lower than a similar HEDIS quality indicator (91%) [12].

For indicators assessing care of patients with cardiovascular disease, at least 70% of Israelis following a coronary intervention received the recommended treatment with statins, beta blockers or ACEI/ARBs. For patients following a coronary intervention, similarities between Israel and England were observed for treatment with beta blockers (Israel = 70%; England = 74%) but differed for treatment with ACEI/ARB (Israel = 69%; England = 89%) [17]. Notably the QICH indicator set defined coronary intervention as persons who underwent bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty in the past five years, while the QOF was based on patients who had a history of myocardial infarction since April 2003.

Treatment and care for diabetes in Israel has moved in a positive direction over the three year measurement period, although changes in rates for indicators of glycemic control were relatively small and even negative. Seven indicators of adherence to recommended treatment of diabetes mellitus were assessed. For the measurement period 2007-2009, higher rates (≥ 74%) of appropriate care were noted in four measures - documentation of BMI, kidney function, glycemic control and cholesterol, and relatively moderate rates (55%-74%) were observed in the remaining three areas - documentation of blood pressure and eye care and influenza immunization. The observed trends for adequate glycemic control (< 7%) are noteworthy. The results suggest that the practice of tight glycemic control may be changing among primary care physicians from a generalized HbA1c goal to an individualized target. Indeed, recent studies have shown that glycemic control for all patients with Type 2 diabetes may not provide the ultimate benefit [18]. One of the current goals of the QICH program is to revise this measure and determine sub-group-specific HbA1c goals. Decreases, albeit slight, in inadequate glycemic control (> 9%) indicate improvements in diabetes care. Further monitoring is necessary to identify long-term trends. Comparison with similar indicators and age groups from the HEDIS and England reveal moderate variations between countries and measures [12, 17]. For example, documentation of HbA1c among adults ranged from 92% in Israel, 97% in the England and 89% in the United States [12, 17]. Similarly, rates of microalbuminurea testing (kidney function) varied from 74% in Israel, 89% in the England and 84% in the United States [12, 17].

Quality indicators and policy

Improvements in quality of care have been noted previously in Israel [19]. In this recent study, the authors hypothesize that quality improvements may be a result of the feedback from the measurement process itself. This theory relates to the quality improvement maxim that "efforts to improve quality require efforts to measure it" [20]. To be sure, during the past decade of quality assessment of healthcare in Israel, health plans have implemented strategies for improving care and access to services as well as encouraged physician adherence to guidelines [21, 22]. The dramatic increases in documentation of anthropometric measures signify a targeted approach by health plans to document a neglected area of care and signal policy changes that have permeated all segments of the healthcare system. In light of these observations, expected trajectories of existing quality indicators are likely to attenuate over the next decade.

It should be noted, however, that incentives may account for lower rates of healthcare quality in certain areas in comparison to England's pay-for-performance system since the Israeli healthcare system is not a pay-for-performance system and physicians do not receive direct benefits for increased performance. In order to properly assess and compare the quality of Israel's healthcare system with that of a pay-for-service, outcome-based indicators and sufficient follow-up time are necessary.

Policy implications and future directions of this program mirror that of other international efforts [23, 24]. Quality indicators must undergo constant evaluation of whether they accurately capture the care that is being provided as well as their impact on health outcomes [24]. Examination of the adverse or beneficial changes in health outcomes is an essential tool in the evaluation process, since change alone in quality of care does not necessarily correspond to improvements in patient health. Composite indicators of health are also integral to disease management and future indicator sets should comprise such measures.

Assessment of quality indicators should comprise a more refined evaluation of subgroups and at-risk populations as well as changes over time in their quality care. In a recent report by Hussey et al. [10], similar disparities in socio-economic status (SES) in healthcare quality indicators were observed for four countries with different health systems and populations. The authors note that their study underscores the need to examine the impact of internal and external factors on the healthcare system (and health inequalities), such as changing healthcare patterns (internal) and targeted prevention programs (external). The proxy SES variable available to the QICH data set (data not shown) is of questionable utility and a proper assessment of the effect of SES on quality care in Israel is needed.

Finally, The QICH program has brought about substantial positive changes in the quality of healthcare data in Israel. An improved data platform that captures a larger share of the healthcare delivery system is necessary for the further assessment of continuity of care and other healthcare quality issues. Policymakers should promote the continued interface between the four Israeli health plans and support communication with other healthcare providers, such as for residential, early childhood and elderly care facilities. Interchange between hospital and primary care is vital to improved healthcare quality such as effectiveness and efficiency of care and care coordination. This type of improved framework requires policy changes and even incentives to allow for information exchange and data flow within the confines of privacy and confidentiality.

Strengths and limitations

Israel is one of the only countries with a systematic and comprehensive evaluation program assessing the quality of the community healthcare at a national level. The QICH indicator set represents a unique and essential tool in healthcare. First, quality indicators are important to assess adherence of the community healthcare system to recommended guidelines that include preventive care. Increased use of preventive healthcare services is considered essential for reducing the clinical preventable burden as well as being cost effective [25]. Second, electronic health records - a mainstay of the medical system in Israel for over a decade, allow for the assessment of historical as well as current healthcare measurements. Third, all residents have unique identifying numbers that allow for linking external medical records, such as those for hospital procedures. Fourth, the program is a combined effort of all four health plan providers, who have, among other things, standardized disease registries and confirmed their commitment to treatment guidelines.

These quality indicators are not without limitations. Quality of community healthcare is anchored in its governing bodies and provider system and is susceptible to the constraints and shortcomings of each. International comparisons with similar measures are subject to the diversity of policy, culture and resources that directly and indirectly affect the structure, performance and outcome of healthcare [26]. In Israel, health plans are restricted by the availability of certain types of healthcare data, such as hospital discharge data and inpatient diagnoses. For example, patients with heart disease are identified using reimbursement codes for bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty even though this sub-population represents only about 10% of the patients with cardiovascular disease. The validity of the QICH indicator set must also be qualified. Apart from laboratory results, which produce objective and non-biased values, blood pressure measurements, for example, which require human assessment and documentation, vary between testers and may be subject to dishonest reporting. Lastly, regulatory restrictions of demographic information, including socio-economic status, limit the development of a complete assessment of quality across all categories of health and for various subgroups. Case-mix adjustments or stratification according to demographic or socio-economic characteristics may allow for a clearer understanding of the quality of health care in Israel in order to target gaps in care and identify and learn from successes.

Conclusions

The overall quality of community health care in Israel has improved over the past three years. Comparisons with similar international quality indicators suggest that community healthcare in Israel is on par with other Western countries. The results presented in this study illustrate that the current state of health care in Israel is that of improving quality of community healthcare. One of the next steps in assessing and improving healthcare quality in Israel is to relate these process and performance indicators to health outcomes.

Authors' information

DHJ is an epidemiologist at the School of Public Health, Hebrew University - Hadassah and the coordinator of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

OM is a professor of statistics, head of the School of Public Health, Hebrew University - Hadassah and is the director of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

AS is a professor of health economics at the School of Public Health, Hebrew University - Hadassah and is on the directorate of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

AB-Y is a professor of internal medicine, head of the department of internal medicine at the Hadassah Medical Center and is on the directorate of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

OP is a professor of hematology at the Hadassah Medical Center, epidemiologist at the School of Public Health, Hebrew University - Hadassah and is on the directorate of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

RC is a physician and epidemiologist at the School of Public Health, Hebrew University - Hadassah and is on the directorate of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

ADC is a physician and Director of the Department of Quality Measures and Research, Chief Physician Office at Clalit Health Services and is on the steering committee of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

JKR is a physician and CIO of the Medical Division of the Meuhedet Health Fund and is on the steering committee of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

EM is a physician and Director of the Division of Clinical Medicine at the Leumit Health Fund and is on the steering committee of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

RW-M is a physician and Director of Quality Management at Maccabi Healthcare Services and is on the steering committee of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel.

Abbreviations

ACEI: 

angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

ARB: 

angiotensin receptor blockers

BMI: 

body mass index

HbA1c: 

glycated hemoglobin

LDL: 

low density lipoproteins

QICH: 

Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare

QOF: 

Quality and Outcomes Framework

NIH: 

National Health Insurance

SES: 

socio-economic status.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The National Project for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel is under the supervision of the National Institute for Healthcare Policy and Research, with the support of the Health Council.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Program directorate of the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel, Ministry of Health
(2)
Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Hebrew University - Hadassah
(3)
Department of Internal Medicine, Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center
(4)
Clalit Health Services
(5)
Leumit Health Fund
(6)
Meuhedet Health Fund
(7)
Maccabi Healthcare Services

References

  1. Institute of Medicine: Envisioning the National Health care Quality Report. Edited by: Hurtado MP, Swift EK, Corrigan JM. 2001, Washington DC: National Academy Press
  2. Nolte E, Wait S, McKee M: Investing in Health. Benchmarking Health Systems. 2006, London: The Nuffield TrustGoogle Scholar
  3. Mattke S, Kelley E, Scherer P, Hurst J, Lapetra MLG, HCQI Expert Group Members: Health Care Quality Inidcators Project Initial Indicators Report. OECD Health Working Papers No. 22. 2006, OECDGoogle Scholar
  4. Porath A, Rabinowitz G, Raskin-Segal A, Weitzman R: Quality Clinical Primary Healthcare Indicators in Israel, Public Report 2003-2005. 2006, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services ResearchGoogle Scholar
  5. Porath A, Rabinowitz G, Raskin-Segal A, Weitzman R: Quality Clinical Primary Healthcare Indicators in Israel, Public Report 2004-2006. 2007, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services ResearchGoogle Scholar
  6. Porath A, Rabinowitz G, Raskin-Segal A, Weitzman R: Quality Clinical Primary Healthcare Indicators in Israel, Public Report 2005-2007. 2008, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services ResearchGoogle Scholar
  7. Manor O, Shmueli A, Ben-Yehuda A, Paltiel O, Calderon R, Jaffe D: National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare in Israel Report, 2007-2009. 2011, Jerusalem: Hebrew University - Hadassah, Israel Ministry of Health and Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services ResearchGoogle Scholar
  8. Bendelek Z: Sick fund membership. Periodical Surveys, No. 2270. 2009, Jerusalem: National Insurance InstituteGoogle Scholar
  9. Walshe K: International comparisons of the quality of health care: what do they tell us?. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003, 12: 4-5. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.4.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hussey P, Anderson G, Berthelot JM, Feek C, Kelley E, Osborn R, Raleigh V, Epstein A: Trends in socioeconomic disparities in health care quality in four countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008, 20: 53-61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, McGlynn EA, Campbell S, Brook RH, Roland MO: Can health care quality indicators be transferred between countries?. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003, 12: 8-12. 10.1136/qhc.12.1.8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. National Committee for Quality Assurance: The State of Health Care Quality. Reform, the Quality Agenda and Resource Use. 2010, Washington DC: National Committee for Quality AssuranceGoogle Scholar
  13. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Health Data 2011. [http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3746,en_2649_37407_2085200_1_1_1_37407,00.html]
  14. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development): Health at a Glance 2009. OECD Indicators. 2009, OECDGoogle Scholar
  15. Baker RD, Greer FR: Committee on Nutrition American Academy of Pediatrics. Diagnosis and prevention of iron deficiency and iron-deficiency anemia in infants and young children (0-3 years of age). Pediatrics. 2010, 126: 1040-1050. 10.1542/peds.2010-2576.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Redberg RF, Benjamin EJ, Bittner V, Braun LT, Goff DC, Havas S, Labarthe DR, Limacher MC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Mora S, Pearson TA, Radford MJ, Smetana GW, Spertus JA, Swegler EW, American Academy of Family Physicians; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association: ACCF/AHA 2009 performance measures for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Performance Measures for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease) developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association: endorsed by the American College of Preventive Medicine, American College of Sports Medicine, and Society for Women's Health Research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009, 54: 1364-1405. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.08.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) Online GP practice results database. [http://www.qof.ic.nhs.uk/index.asp]
  18. Montori VM, Fernández-Balsells M: Glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: time for an evidence-based about-face?. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 150: 803-808.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosen B, Porath A, Pawlson LG, Chassin MR, Benbassat J: Adherence to standards of care by health maintenance organizations in Israe l and the USA. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011, 23: 15-25. 10.1093/intqhc/mzq065.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Casalino LP: The unintended consequences of measuring quality on the quality of medical care. N Engl J Med. 2000, 342: 519-520.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilf-Miron R, Galai N, Gabali A, Lewinhoff I, Shem Tov O, Lernau O, Shemer J: Organisational efforts to improve quality while reducing healthcare disparities: the case of breat cancer screening among Arab women in Israel. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010, 19: 1-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Balicer RD, Shadmi E, Lieberman N, Greenberg-Dotan S, Goldfracht M, Jana L, Cohen AD, Regev-Rosenberg SD, Jacobson O: Reducing health disparities: strategy planning and implementation in Israel's largest health care organization. Health Serv Res. 2011, 46: 1281-1299. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01247.x.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley ET, Arispe I, Holmes J: Beyond the initial indicators: lessons from the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project and the US National Healthcare Quality Report. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006, 18: s45-s51. 10.1093/intqhc/mzl027.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Chassin MR, Loeb JM, Schmatlz SP, Wachter RM: Accountability measures - using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2010, 363: 683-688. 10.1056/NEJMsb1002320.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI: Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2006, 31: 52-61. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Legido-Quigley H, McKee M, Nolte E, Glinos IA: Assuring the Quality of Health Care in the European Union. A Case for Action. 2008, Copenhagen: World Health Organization, European Observatory on Health Systems and PoliciesGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Jaffe et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comments