0
View Post
January Workgroups Highlight Using Claims Data to Drive Sepsis QI and Reducing SSIs Through Multidisciplinary Collaboration

January Workgroups Highlight Using Claims Data to Drive Sepsis QI and Reducing SSIs Through Multidisciplinary Collaboration

In January, Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) kicked off the 2026 workgroup calendar with a sepsis workgroup focused on helping members better understand how to use claims-based data to support sepsis quality improvement (QI) efforts. The session featured an overview of sepsis-related reporting available on the MVC registry followed by an example of how custom analytic reports can be used to dig deeper into areas of clinical interest. The second workgroup of the month, a health in action presentation, featured Corewell Health Farmington Hills Hospital’s multi-year QI initiative aimed at reducing surgical site infections (SSIs) in colorectal surgery. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts one to two workgroup presentations per month covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action.

Sepsis Workgroup – MVC Coordinating Center

The workgroup opened with a presentation by MVC’s Site Engagement Coordinator Rachel Folk, MHA, who walked participants through the types of sepsis related data available in the MVC registry and how members can use these reports to support local QI initiatives. The presentation emphasized that MVC’s claims-based data registry allows members to examine sepsis episodes of care across multiple payers and care settings, providing a broader view of healthcare utilization and outcomes than many internal data sources alone.

Participants were introduced to several registry reports that are particularly relevant to sepsis analysis, including:

  • Episode Payments Report, which shows total, price-standardized payments for 30- or 90-day episodes and can be used as a proxy for assessments of utilization across inpatient, professional, post-acute, and readmission services.
  • Episode Utilization Rates Report, which breaks down where patients receive care during and after an episode, such as skilled nursing facilities, home health, inpatient rehabilitation, or emergency department visits.
  • Readmissions Report, which allows members to explore readmission rates for patients by time interval and whether patients return to the index hospital or are readmitted elsewhere.
  • Comorbidities Report, which highlights common coexisting conditions among patients and supports a deeper understanding of patient complexity.
  • Payment by Condition Report, which compares case volume and utilization across conditions and helps contextualize sepsis relative to other medical episodes.

The presentation also included a review of sepsis-related Pay for Performance (P4P) reports available in the MVC registry including a Value Metric Summary Report and Value Metric Trends Report, which allow users to assess their current performance, improvement and achievement baselines and trends over time (Figures 1 and 2). Folk explained how these reports can help teams visualize progress relative to peer hospitals and MVC-wide averages.

Figure 1. MVC Data Registry Value Metric Summary – Blinded Report

MVC Data Registry Value Metric Summary table – Blinded Report

Figure 2. MVC Data Registry Value Metric Trends – Blinded Report

MVC Data Registry Value Metric Trends line graph – Blinded Report

Throughout the presentation, Folk additionally highlighted key registry features such as filtering by hospital type, payer, episode length, patient demographics, and episode time frame. She also reviewed case suppression thresholds and reminded participants that MVC’s data are risk adjusted, allowing for fairer comparisons across hospitals with differing patient populations.

Using Claims Data to Support Improvement

A recurring theme of the discussion was the importance of approaching the registry with curiosity. Participants were encouraged to consider the “five W’s” when reviewing their data and to use the available benchmarking opportunities to compare their hospital’s performance against similar hospitals to help identify realistic opportunities for improvement.

Polling during the session revealed that many participants had limited or no prior experience with an MVC registry review. Registry reviews are a dedicated opportunity for MVC staff to walk members through their site-specific data, focusing on the reports and metrics most relevant to their individual goals. These reviews can help teams move beyond high-level trends to more actionable questions about variation, utilization, and outcomes.

If you’re interested in setting up a time to complete a registry review, please email MVC.

Applying Custom Analytics to Sepsis Care

The workgroup concluded with a second presentation by MVC Analyst Janet Zhang, MPH, highlighting how custom analytic reports can be used to explore specific questions not fully addressed by standard registry reports. Using a recent example focused on sepsis patients and the impact of palliative care, Zang demonstrated how tailored analyses can provide deeper insight into care patterns, outcomes, and opportunities for improvement.

MVC encourages members interested in deeper analyses via custom report to submit a request through the Coordinating Center [Link].

MVC Sepsis Workgroup: Jan. 13, 2026

Health in Action Workgroup – Corewell Health Farmington Hills Hospital

MVC’s second workgroup of January featured Jennifer Hengy, BSN, RN, Internal Quality Improvement Specialist, Dr. Eugene Laveroni, Chief of Surgery, and Leslie Smith, RPh, JD, BCPS, BCIDP, Clinical Pharmacist Specialist from Corewell Health Farmington Hills. Together they showcased how a multidisciplinary team used data, evidence-based guidelines, and workflow redesign to drive meaningful improvements in patients’ safety by reducing SSIs in colorectal surgery.

SSIs remain a significant source of patient harm and financial penalty for hospitals nationwide. Despite advances in sterile technique and surgical technology, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to show SSIs occur at alarming rates. As Hengy explained, their local data mirrored this challenge with an SSI rate of 9.6% in colorectal surgeries in 2023. This signaled an urgent need for targeted improvement. For Farmington Hills, this started with building the right team.

Building a Team

The initial improvement committee included surgical leadership, quality improvement specialists, pharmacy, nursing education, and anesthesia, with additional stakeholders added as new insights emerged. This diverse group ensured that clinical expertise, frontline workers, and data review were all represented throughout the project. Another key principle of the initiative was fostering a non-punitive culture. Chart reviews and peer discussion focused on learning and system improvement rather than individual blame, helping to sustain engagement across disciplines.

The Discovery Phase: Identifying Key Gaps

The discovery phase proved to be the most challenging but ultimately the most impactful, Hengy shared. The team conducted detailed chart reviews of SSI cases to better understand contributing factors, examining elements including:

  • Use of clean closing gloves, gowns, and closing packs
  • Skin preparation and closure techniques
  • Antibiotic selection, timing, and infusion duration
  • Documentation of infections present at the time of surgery (or PATOS)

Early interventions focused on education about documentation, standardized closing packs, and surgical techniques. While these steps led to modest improvements, they did not produce the level of change the team was seeking so they turned to the experts in antibiotics.

Optimizing Antibiotic Selection and Timing

A deeper dive into perioperative antibiotic practices at Farmington Hills revealed variability in both the antibiotics chosen and their infusion timing. The team identified frequent use of second-line antibiotics in patients with reported penicillin allergies, as well as inconsistencies ensuring antibiotics were fully infused prior to surgical incision.

Smith, a clinical pharmacist specializing in antimicrobial stewardship and a member of Corewell Health Farmington Hills’ SSI workgroup explained that cefazolin remains the preferred first-line prophylactic antibiotic for colorectal surgery and can be safely administered to most patients with reported penicillin allergies. Pharmacy-led education highlighted Cefazolin’s uniquely low risk of cross-reactivity and proven lower SSI rates compared to non-beta-lactam alternatives. Education was delivered through multiple channels, including surgical quality meetings, residents and provider training, newsletters, and real-time feedback to reinforce adherence to standardized protocols.

In addition, the team redesigned workflows to address infusion timing. New processes ensured that antibiotics requiring longer infusion times were started earlier in the preoperative phase. The use of visual job aids, memory tools, and Omnicell alerts reinforced these changes at the point of care (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3. Timing of Preoperative Antibiotic Infusion Flyer

Timing of Preoperative Antibiotic Infusion Flyer

Figure 4. Recommended Antibiotic Re-Dosing Interval Guideline Table for Patients Currently Receiving Antibiotics

Recommended Antibiotic Re-Dosing Interval Guideline Table for Patients Currently Receiving Antibiotics

Outcomes and Impact

Following implementation of these antibiotic-focused interventions and revised workflows, Corewell Health Farmington Hills observed a substantial reduction in colorectal SSIs with an infection ratio (SIR) of 0% between February 2024 and August 2024. In conclusion, the presenters emphasized that while zero harm is an aspirational goal, the consistency of guideline adherence and the sustainability of improved practices represented their major successes.

MVC Health in Action Workgroup: Jan. 29, 2026

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members. Please reach out to us via email or by submitting a presentation proposal using this form if you are interested in sharing your work.

0
View Post
MVC Thanks Presenters from the Second Half of 2025

MVC Thanks Presenters from the Second Half of 2025

The MVC Coordinating Center wishes to express our deep appreciation for the 31 dedicated healthcare professionals who volunteered to present at MVC’s third and fourth quarter 2025 virtual workgroups, fall collaborative-wide meeting, and the Michigan Cardiac Rehabilitation network (MiCR) fall meeting. We know that MVC’s members and partners have many demands on their time from within their own organizations and beyond. Nonetheless, these 31 guest speakers shared their data, innovative approaches, best practices, and lessons learned with MVC members to support our shared goals of peer learning and high-value care delivery for all Michigan patients. We celebrate you for contributing in this important way, some at multiple events. You DO make a difference!

Join us in giving these folks a well-deserved round of applause:

Health in Action Workgroup

  • Amanda Escalera-Torres, RD, Program Director for Hurley Medical Center Food FARMacy Program
  • Leah Julian, BA, Innovation in Behavioral Health (IBH) Specialist, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS)
  • Lindsey Naeyaert, MPH, Service Delivery Transformation Section Manager, MDHHS

Post-Discharge Follow-Up Workgroup

  • Sara Hagerman, BSN, RN, Quality/Performance Improvement Specialist, University of Michigan Health - Sparrow Carson
  • Noa Kim, MSI, Informatics Design Lead, Healthy Behavior Optimization of Michigan (HBOM)
  • Larrea Young, MDes, Human-Centered Design Project Manager, HBOM

Preoperative Testing Workgroup

  • Amy Poindexter, BSN, RN, Performance Improvement Analyst, Holland Hospital
  • Kelly Lewton, RN, BSN, Performance Improvement Coordinator, Lake Huron Medical Center
  • Nicole Mott, MD, MSCR, Resident Physician and Post-Doctoral Fellow, University of Colorado & University of Michigan

Rural Health Workgroup

  • Lindsey Crouch, RN, Program Director, Hillsdale Community Health Center Mobile Health Clinic
  • Victoria Durr, BSN, RN, Infection Prevention Coordinator, Scheurer Health

Sepsis Workgroup

  • Errin Couck, RN, BSN, HMS Sepsis Abstractor, Henry Ford Health Macomb
  • Brandie DeVos, RN, MSN, Sepsis Coordinator, Henry Ford Health Macomb

Fall Collaborative-Wide Meeting Keynote Speaker

  • Gloria Rey, PA-C, MPH, Director of Post-Acute Care, Populance Henry Ford Health

Fall Collaborative-Wide Meeting Podium and Breakout Session Speakers

  • Brad Iott, PhD, MPH, Content Expert in Health Informatics and Social Care Integration, MSHIELD
  • Julia Weinert, MPH, Program Manager, MSHIELD
  • Amanda Biskner, RN, Paramedic, CP-C, Community Paramedicine Coordinator, Tri-Hospital EMS
  • Kelly Clark, MD, Faculty, Munson Family Medicine Residency Program and Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine at Michigan State University
  • Belinda Dokic, CPhT, BA, MBA, Clinically Integrated Network Program Manager, Trinity Health Livonia
  • Michael Gatt, MD, Gynecologist, Trinity Health Livonia
  • Holly Gould, MSN, CNM, RN, Director of Quality Improvement and Organizational Excellence, McLaren Port Huron
  • Nicole Luczak, President and CEO, United Way Bay County
  • Greg Scharf, BS, ACSM-CEP, AACVPR-CCRP, Cardiopulmonary Rehab System Manager, MyMichigan Medical Center - Midland

MiCR Fall In-Person Meeting Keynote Speaker

  • Stacey Greenway, MPH, MS, President of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR)

MiCR Fall In-Person Meeting Podium Speakers

  • Barry Franklin, PhD, Director (Emeritus), Preventive Cardiology and Cardiac Rehabilitation, Corewell Health East, William Beaumont University Hospital
  • Megan Gross, MPH, CHES, ACSMCEP, EIM, Clinical Exercise Physiologist, Holland Hospital
  • Cindy Haskin-Popp, MS, CEP Manager, Cardiology, Corewell Health East
  • Amy Poindexter, BS, CEP, Performance Improvement Analyst, Trinity Ann Arbor
  • Brett Reynolds, MPH, ACSM-CEP, Supervisor of Cardiology, Corewell Health East
  • David Running, BS, CEP, Supervisor-Cardiac Rehab, University of Michigan Health West
  • Amber Steele, ACSM-CEP, Cardiac Rehab Lead, McLaren Bay Region
  • Larrea Young, MDes, Human-Centered Design Project Manager, HBOM
thank you graphic

The MVC members and partners who attend MVC events appreciated these presenters, too. Here are just a few of the many glowing survey responses MVC received about presenters and their content in 2025.

presentation attendee testimonials

As a reminder, past workgroups and virtual networking event recordings can be viewed on MVC’s YouTube channel, and presentation slides and materials from MVC’s fall collaborative-wide meeting can be viewed here.

Do you have valuable information to share?

Whether you are new to presenting or a seasoned pro, the MVC Coordinating Center is here to support you every step of the way. From exploring topic ideas to preparing information and managing event logistics, our team makes the experience of presenting easy and comfortable. The P4P points you can earn as a presenter are a great benefit to your organization, too. For more information about presenting, contact the MVC Coordinating Center or submit a proposal here.

0
View Post
December Workgroups Highlight RITE-Size Preoperative Testing and MVC Year End Reflections and Goals

December Workgroups Highlight RITE-Size Preoperative Testing and MVC Year End Reflections and Goals

In December, Michigan Value Collaborative’s (MVC) preoperative testing workgroup featured a co-presentation by Kelly Lewton, RN, BSN, Performance Improvement Coordinator for Lake Huron Medical Center, and Nicole Mott, MD, MSCR, a National Clinician Scholar at the University of Michigan supported by the Veterans Administration and a general surgery resident at the University of Colorado. The presentation focused on the Right-Sizing Testing Before Elective Surgery (RITE-Size) trial; Dr. Mott was the lead author on a recently published paper in JAMA Network Open that described the components and impact of the trial, and Lewton shared her first-hand experience as the lead during Lake Huron Medical Center’s participation in the trial. RITE-Size works with hospitals to identify and right-size testing before elective surgery procedures. The second workgroup, health in action, featured MVC Site Engagement Coordinator Emily Bair, MS, MPH, RDN, CSP, and the Engagement team and focused on a year in review of quality initiatives across MVC members. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts one to two workgroup presentations per month covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action.

Preoperative Testing Workgroup - RITE-Size & Lake Huron Medical Center

The RITE-Size trial is a partnership among quality improvement teams in Michigan including the Michigan Program on Value Enhancement (MPrOVE), the MVC Coordinating Center, the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), and the Anesthesiology Performance Improvement and Reporting Exchange (ASPIRE). Dr. Mott shared that the goal for RITE-Size participants is to lower unnecessary preoperative testing before elective outpatient cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, and lumpectomy. Routine preoperative testing before these low-risk surgeries has shown no clinical benefit to the patient but has led to multiple downstream consequences such as increased spending, care cascades, and treatment delays (Dossett & Wilkinson, 2022).

Dr. Mott described that RITE-Size launched a pilot feasibility study in March 2024 at three hospitals in Michigan. The study aimed to meet criteria in several areas such as feasibility (implementation in the appropriate amount of time), testing rates (reduction), and acceptability and appropriateness (results from interviews). By August 2024, the desired milestones had been achieved, showing a 68% reduction in unnecessary testing at all participating sites (Figure 1).

Figure 1. MVC RITE-Size Pilot Program Testing Rates Over Time Across All Three Sites from March-April 2024 to July-August 2024

line graph depicting reduction in unnecessary preoperative testing at three pilot sites

Some barriers that impacted the study included lack of clarity about guidelines, a need for ongoing education due to the automated nature of testing processes, and coordination across a large healthcare system and/or within the limitations of institutional rules. Elements that led to success included strong leadership through key collaborators, incorporation of the initiative into policy, self-monitoring throughout, and team cohesiveness and communication. The pilot's success allowed RITE-Size to expand to other sites across Michigan.

Lewton from Lake Huron Medical Center (LHMC) followed the RITE-size presentation sharing first-hand experience of participating with the initiative in 2025. She described the site onboarding process, which included a RITE-Size site visit in July 2025 where her team worked with Dana Greene, Jr., Project Manager at MPrOVE, to discuss LHMC interventions and progress over the duration of the program and to schedule ongoing coaching sessions (Figure 2).  After investigating preoperative testing rates, LHMC found that their biggest outlier was electrocardiograms (EKGs) ordered by a particular surgeon.

After the site visit, the lead anesthesiologist met with the surgeon, and they discovered he had been given outdated testing guidelines when he onboarded. With this discovery, their team was able to review their testing guidelines and begin the process of updating and educating team members. By November 2025, LHMC saw a notable decrease in preoperative testing for low-risk surgeries and began development for an updated version of their pre-admission testing (PAT) guidelines.

Figure 2. LHMC Timeline of RITE-Size Pilot Work

Lake Huron Medical Center timeline of RITE-Size pilot work

Lewton rounded out the presentation sharing that the RITE-Size project helped LHMC to update their care guidelines, improve patient care, and reduce unnecessary testing. RITE-Size also provided many resources for staff to help with new process implementation and coached staff to use evidence-based research to guide everyday practice.

MVC Preoperative Testing Workgroup: Dec. 2, 2025

Health in Action Workgroup - MVC Coordinating Center

This month’s health in action workgroup was led by MVC Site Engagement Coordinator Emily Bair, MS, MPH, RDN, CSP, with support from other staff at the MVC Coordinating Center. The workgroup encapsulated a year in review for member QI work in 2025 as well as a look ahead at 2026.

Bair shared result highlights from the MVC QI survey that many MVC members completed in June 2025, noting several common QI efforts across the state (Figure 3). The top areas of focus were sepsis, readmissions, transitions of care, population health management, and emergency department care. Of the 88 survey responses, there were a total of 65 hospitals, 8 physician organizations, and 15 hospital systems represented.

Figure 3. Statewide QI Initiatives in 2025

Statewide QI Initiatives in 2025 depicting sepsis, readmissions, transitions of care, population health management, and emergency department care

Some of the common barriers identified by member sites in the survey included insufficient resources and funds, staff burnout, high turnover, and staff shortages.

The MVC QI survey also sought to consider the needs of its members and asked participants to provide suggestions for how MVC can best support them in the upcoming year (Figure 4). The top requests included data and report-specific training, recordings and summaries of workgroups for those unable to attend events, user-friendly reports, smaller and more frequent breakout sessions during virtual events, and data and QI topics that are helpful for all types of hospital sites.

Figure 4. MVC Member Suggestions for Future Offerings

Graphic Summary of MVC Member Suggestions for Future Offerings

Bair reminded participants that MVC uploads virtual workgroup recordings to MVC’s YouTube channel and shares the link with members in a post-workgroup summary email along with slides and resources from presentations. To support members in accessing additional training opportunities, MVC has launched its new new site coordinator education program in January 2026. The four-module training is designed to provide a more individualized approach to building knowledge as an MVC site coordinator. The MVC QI survey was also a helpful resource for presenter recruitment, developing 2025 workgroup content, and planning 2026 offerings.

Following the 2025 review, participants engaged in an interactive polling activity about QI progress from the past year (Figure 5), areas of focus, and their key accomplishments. Some of the successes shared included improving compliance with the sepsis bundle, maintaining a low readmission rate, increased senior/executive leadership engagement, and a department-led change to improve utilization.

Figure 5. MVC Participants QI Progress Word Cloud

MVC Participants QI Progress Word Cloud

Workgroup participants were asked to share some of their QI priorities for 2026, including ways that their sites are trying to align with other services or programs and how MVC can best support them. Several shared they will focus on the following priorities in 2026:

  1. Sepsis compliance improvement
  2. Streamlining order sets to reduce sepsis fallouts
  3. Reducing readmissions
  4. Building connections with primary care clinics
  5. Reducing length of stay
  6. Reducing unnecessary preoperative testing by participating in the RITE-Size trial
  7. Reducing hospital acquired infections
  8. Interviewing readmissions patients

Participants also shared different ways they are working to align with Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQI) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) measures. Several sites noted that they are shifting to align their sepsis metrics with the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) sepsis initiative and the CMS Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements.

Members expressed interest in learning more about local quality leaders, developing effective committee structures within their sites, and acquiring new resources that might be available. Additionally, there was great interest in MVC’s new site coordinator education program that kicked off this January with modules that support site coordinators via one-on-one tailored training. Registration for the education program is closed for Q1 – Q2, and a waitlist has been started for Q3 – Q4. If you are a site coordinator interested in participating, you can submit an interest form. [LINK]

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members. Please reach out to us by email or by submitting a presentation proposal here if you are interested in sharing your work in a presentation.

MVC Health in Action Workgroup: Dec. 18, 2025

0
View Post
MVC Announces Meeting Dates, Workgroups, and Trainings Available in 2026

MVC Announces Meeting Dates, Workgroups, and Trainings Available in 2026

As we head into the holiday season and final months of calendar year 2025, the MVC Coordinating Center has been planning for its 2026 engagement activities. At MVC's most recent fall collaborative-wide meeting in October, MVC first announced several key dates and updates related to next year’s engagement offerings. 

MVC’s 2026 event calendar is available now [PDF]. Of note, MVC site coordinators can see the dates for 2026 collaborative-wide meetings (Figure 1) and workgroups, as well as the months in which MVC will offer in-person or virtual networking events. MVC will head to Traverse City for its spring collaborative-wide meeting on May 8, 2026. MVC will return to Vistatech in Livonia for its fall collaborative-wide meeting on Oct. 9, 2026. 

Figure 1.

Also available is MVC’s Program Year (PY) 2026 P4P Engagement Point Menu [PDF]. Engagement activities offered in 2025 will largely continue along with some minor changes and new additions.

Earning P4P Engagement Points in 2026

In PY 2026 of the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, members can continue to earn up to two engagement points by completing eligible MVC activities. Many of the engagement point activities from PY 2025 remain available, such as attending or presenting at eligible MVC events, participating in site visits, utilizing MVC custom analytics, and survey submissions (Figure 2). Some of these offerings will have minor adjustments to their allotted point values. For example, attending a collaborative-wide meeting will now be worth 0.4 points compared to 0.25 points in 2025, and worth 1 point in 2026 for attending both meetings versus 0.75 in 2025.

Figure 2.

Another minor change is the number of virtual workgroups offered. MVC will offer 18 virtual workgroups in 2026; these workgroups will continue to focus on similar topics and themes, including cardiac rehabilitation, preoperative testing, post-discharge follow-up, rural health, health in action, and sepsis.

New Engagement Offering

MVC is excited to introduce one new offering in 2026: site coordinator education modules. These modules will support site coordinators via one-on-one tailored training that covers a variety of topics (Figure 3). Site coordinators can receive 0.2 engagement points per module and may participate in as few as one module or all four within the performance year. Each quarter of 2026, MVC will offer limited registration to participate in a module. Registration to begin participating in 2026 Q1 will start in December 2025. Training topics provide a review of:

  1. Overview of MVC’s mission, history, P4P program, and site coordinator role
  2. Training on MVC claims data, metrics, and reports
  3. Introduction to MVC’s value-based initiatives and the CQI model
  4. Meeting with other site coordinators to collaborate and discuss practices

Figure 3.

Site coordinator education modules

As part of the online training, site coordinators will complete a structured education plan with individualized guidance to deepen understanding of how to get the most value out of MVC’s offerings.

Earn Engagement Points by Being a Presenter

For those sites participating in the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, being a presenter at an MVC event is an opportunity to earn 0.5 points toward your hospital’s PY26 engagement points. By sharing successes, lessons learned, and helpful tools with members from across the state, presenters play an important role in improving outcomes for all Michigan patients. MVC’s Engagement team is here to support you every step of the way, making the experience of presenting as easy and comfortable as possible. Presentation proposals are accepted on a rolling basis through MVC's online form.

MVC offers a variety of opportunities to engage with the Coordinating Centers and other members of the collaborative to support peer learning, best practice sharing, and networking. These activities and events foster a collaborative learning environment that enables providers to learn from one another in a cooperative, non-competitive space, and is therefore core to MVC’s efforts to support sustainable, high-value healthcare delivery across the state. We look forward to engaging with you and your teams next year. Please contact the Coordinating Center with any questions [EMAIL].

0
View Post
October Workgroup Highlights Food FARMacy Program for Chronic Disease Management

October Workgroup Highlights Food FARMacy Program for Chronic Disease Management

In October, MVC’s health in action workgroup featured Hurley Medical Center’s Amanda Escalera-Torres, RD, Director and Nutrition Specialist for their Food FARMacy program. The presentation shared how the program helps support patients with chronic diseases by providing healthy food and nutrition education. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month, covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action. 

Health in Action Workgroup: Hurley Medical Center 

Hurley Medical Center’s Food FARMacy initiative was founded in 2017 to address Genesee County’s higher food insecurity rate of 13% (compared to the state average of 11%). It was funded by several grants and the Hurley Foundation to provide support services such as grocery access and nutrition education for Hurley patients. According to a 2024 MVC member survey, programs such as this are becoming more common in health systems across the state to address non-medical drivers of health such as food insecurity, economic and housing instability, and other factors. Food insecurity and being unable to access nutritious food has been linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer (Odoms-Young, 2024).  

Patient Eligibility and Enrollment 

Escalera-Torres shared that patients are eligible to enroll in the Hurley Food FARMacy program if they are both food-insecure and have a chronic diet-related condition (Figure 1). Patients are referred to the program through avenues such as Hurley Medical Center inpatient or outpatient services, community health clinics, or primary care clinics throughout Genesee County. Once enrolled, patients receive monthly grocery support, meal kits, and nutrition classes for up to six months (Figure 2). 

Figure 1.

vertical bar chart of predicted disease prevalence for adults in low-income households 2019-2022, source: USDA Economic Research Service

Figure 2.

Food FARMacy nutrition education classes and materials

Food Distribution Process 

Each month, Hurley’s Food FARMacy program provides 300–400 patients with food access and education. Groceries are acquired through established contracts with local farmers and vendors and include locally sourced fresh fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, and more.  

Program and Participant Success 

Hurley Food FARMacy expanded their food resources by increasing their farmer and vendor contracts to 11 this past year. This provides more accessibility for food and helps boost the local Michigan economy. The program also established 12 referral partnerships across Genesee County’s community health centers and primary care providers, allowing the program to serve over 5,500 individuals in the last year. Among the population served, only 5% of those who completed six or more Food FARMacy visits in the last year had an inpatient admission (Figure 3).  

Figure 3.

Food FARMacy program and participant successes

Reducing Barriers 

Following the presentation, Escalera-Torres answered questions about the ways the program has been able to reduce barriers to access, including how food supply was managed during the off-season and how they accommodated patients with transportation limitations. Escalera-Torres explained that the program did experience some difficulty acquiring fresh produce during the off-season but recently partnered with Great Lakes Farm to Freezer to ensure availability of a robust selection of nutritious foods year-round. To address patient transportation barriers, Hurley Food FARMacy partnered with Door Dash earlier in the year for a trial run of delivering food to participants. The program was well received but ended due to lack of continued funding. Patients with transportation barriers are now able to assign a proxy to pick up their groceries, which has helped reduce accessibility barriers.  

The Food FARMacy program will continue to adapt and serve Genesee County patients providing quality food and improving nutritional awareness for chronic diet-related illnesses.  

MVC's cardiac rehabilitation workgroup for October was rescheduled for February 2026. View the complete 2026 workgroup calendar here. 

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members. Please reach out to us by email if you are interested in being a workgroup presenter or submit a presentation proposal here. 

0
View Post
August Workgroups Highlight Preop Testing and Three-Pronged Behavioral Health Initiative

August Workgroups Highlight Preop Testing and Three-Pronged Behavioral Health Initiative

In August, MVC hosted two virtual workgroup presentations – a preoperative testing workgroup focused on planning and evaluation of an initiative to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing, and a health in action workgroup on the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) behavioral health initiative. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month on a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action. 

Preoperative Testing Workgroup - Holland Hospital

On Aug. 12, MVC hosted a preoperative testing workgroup with a presentation by Amy Poindexter, BSN, RN, from Holland Hospital. Poindexter is the Performance Improvement Analyst in Holland Hospital’s quality department and played an integral role in their quality initiatives over the past 16 years. Her work includes data abstraction for Core Measures, Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS), Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), and the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) Anesthesiology Performance Improvement and Reporting Exchange (ASPIRE) registry. 

Holland Hospital’s quality initiative focused on reducing unnecessary, routine preoperative testing within 30 days of low-risk elective surgeries. Conditions included in the project were elective hernia, lap cholecystectomy, and breast lumpectomy. The types of testing that were considered included electrocardiograms (ECG), transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), cardiac stress test, chest x-ray, urinalysis, labs (CBC, BMP, coagulation tests), and pulmonary function tests (PFT). Baseline data used for this initiative was based on Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM), Medicare, and Medicaid patient episodes from January 2023 – March 2023. The initiative goal was to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing by 20% through December 2023. 

The parameters for selecting the preoperative tests were based on recommendations from several well-known medical societies. The American Society of Anesthesiologists recommends not obtaining baseline laboratory studies in patients without significant systemic disease (ASA I or II). The American College of Cardiology recommends avoiding performing ECG screening as part of the preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment in asymptomatic patients scheduled for low-risk non-cardiac procedures. Guidelines to not perform chest x-rays on patients with unremarkable history and physical exams, which are provided by the American College of Radiology and American College of Surgeons, were also used to establish preoperative testing parameters. Holland Hospital used the RITE-size decision aid (Figure 1) to guide testing logic:

Figure 1. RITE-Size Preoperative Testing Decision Aid for Low-Risk Surgeries

Prior to implementing the quality initiative to improve preoperative testing rates, Holland Hospital worked with MVC claims data and MSQC abstracted clinical data from Q1 2023 to develop a baseline data visualization tool. The hospital found that their preoperative testing rates for low-risk surgeries were approximately 10% higher than the MVC All average. According to the sampled cases from MSQC, their average baseline rate was approximately 33%. Holland Hospital set a goal of reducing preoperative testing by 20% (the average rate would need to be less than or equal to 26%) by the end of December 2023. 

Planning Phase 

During the pre-implementation phase of planning, the hospital formed a multi-disciplinary team including pre-admission testing (PAT) staff, surgery providers, hospital leadership, anesthesiologists, and quality improvement staff. The team focused on their pre-admission testing lab draw (basic chemistry panel) policy, which was focused on general and major anesthesia of male and female patients ages 65 – 74 and patients aged 75 and older for specific types of labs such as epidural, spinal, regional, and brachial plexus. Initially, labs were drawn within one month of the procedure, but with the revised policy, patients undergoing low-risk general procedures such as elective hernia or lap cholecystectomy only required labs within 60 days of their procedure. In addition, the process shifted to establish the pre-admission assessment as the trigger for the preoperative testing decision chart. 

Evaluation 

After analyzing the percentage of preoperative screening tests ordered for the associated low-risk procedures, Holland Hospital found that in 2022 they were ordering preoperative tests at a rate of approximately 52% (MVC All rate equaled approximately 45%). With further investigation of preoperative test ordering practices, the site found that of the physicians ordering the tests, 71% were surgeons and 29% were primary care providers (PCPs). Interestingly, the PCP orders would often fall within the 30-day window as the turnaround time from PCP appointment to surgery appointment was happening within a month. It was discovered that physicians had been following old guidelines that were given to them when they were initially onboarded at the hospital in prior years. This finding initiated the implementation of provider education and a slight change in ordering practices.  

To improve ordering accuracy, the PAT team was assigned the responsibility of checking and ordering any preoperative tests needed instead of the surgeons ordering them. As shown in Figure 2, the preoperative testing rates remained above average through September 2023 until provider education and process changes were fully implemented at the end of Q3. After implementing provider education, testing rates showed a significant reduction through the end of 2023.

Figure 2. Holland Hospital Preoperative Testing Rates in 30 Days Prior to Admission for Low-Risk Surgery – Pre-Implementation through Post-Implementation of QI

Vertical bar graph of Holland Hospital Preoperative Testing Rates in 30 Days Prior to Admission for Low-Risk Surgery – Pre-Implementation through Post-Implementation of QI

Workgroup participants asked Poindexter whether other staff had the ability to order preoperative lab tests (such as anesthesia staff) and whether surgical or anesthesia staff were internal or external contracts (Holland Hospital has a mix). Participants were also curious to know how internal or external contracts impacted consistent education. Poindexter noted the education piece was an easier lift at their smaller site, since they only have a few surgical physicians. Participants discussed best practices such as having an updated preoperative testing education program in place for physicians and surgical teams, utilizing RITE-size resources, and including an editable letter and related resources for PCPs about preop testing guidelines and procedures.

Health in Action Workgroup - MDHHS 

On Aug. 28, MVC hosted a health in action workgroup with a MDHHS presentation by Lindsey Naeyaert, MPH, Director of Behavioral Health Transformation in Health Services, and Leah Julian, Innovation in Behavioral Health Specialist in Health Services. Naeyeart leads and directs policy development and changes, program operations, analysis, research, and reporting of integrated health models at MDHHS. Julian is responsible for planning, implementation, and oversight of the Innovation in Behavioral Health (IBH) Model in partnership with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Naeyaert and Julian presented the three programs currently offered through MDHHS: Behavior Health Home, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, and the Innovation in Behavioral Health Model. 

Behavior Health Home (BHH) 

The BHH is one of the longest running Medicaid optional state plan benefits, authorized under the 1945 US Social Security Act. This plan allows for more flexible funding towards care for serious and complex chronic conditions of Medicaid beneficiaries. The purpose of the BHH plan is to serve the “whole person” by including physical, behavioral, and social services through an interdisciplinary care team. The goal of this program is to integrate care, create cost-efficiencies, and increase participant health status. This plan is available for people with Medicaid who have two or more chronic conditions, or one chronic condition and are at risk for a second condition. 

In 2014, MDHHS launched a county model of BHH and revamped the design in 2020. The updated program targeted beneficiaries with a diagnosis of Serious Mental Illness (SMI) or Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED). The service area includes 79 counties and 40 home health providers including community mental health services programs, federally qualified health centers, hospital-based clinical practices, rural health clinics, and tribal health centers. In fiscal year (FY) 2024, there were 4,399 people enrolled with ages ranging from 4-86.  

Under this plan, interdisciplinary team members can now be reimbursed for services provided under Health Home Core Services (HHCS) that in the past could not be billed. For example, if the team meets to discuss a patient’s treatment plan it can be billed under care coordination through HHCS (Figure 3). Other covered services include comprehensive care management, health promotion, comprehensive transitional care, individual and family support, referral to community, and social services.

Figure 3. Health Home Core Services

Health Home Core Services: comprehensive care management, health promotion, comprehensive transitional care, individual and family support, referral to community, and social services

Since the implementation of the program, there have been several positive outcomes observed such as increased post-discharge follow-up for mental illness or intentional self-harm episodes, increased care coordination between physical and mental health providers, increased control of high blood pressure, and increased access to preventive/ambulatory health services. 

Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs) Demonstration 

CCBHCs are non-profit or local government agencies that must meet robust state certification criteria (200 standards). These sites must serve all people, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay, and are required to work with local hospitals as part of their certification criteria. These sites use a state-developed and clinic-based prospective payment system model for reimbursement. There are currently 35 demonstration sites across the state of Michigan. The primary objectives of CCBHCs are to increase access to high-quality services that use evidence-based practices; coordinate behavioral health, physical health, and social needs; promote the use of evidence-based practices; and establish statewide standardization and consistency using the same criteria across all certified clinics. 

In year three (FY 2023) through four (FY 2024), MDHHS added 17 CCBHC sites in Michigan and expects to add 10 more sites by FY 2025. Data collected through FY 2024 shows positive impacts on participating patient populations and CCBHCs. Overall, CCBHCs have seen a 77% increase in individuals served since development year two, with 81% of participating patients enrolled in Medicaid. Some patients with commercial health plans have been able to see providers at CCBHCs as well. Data also shows that 23% of CCBHC patients were children 18 years old and younger. This suggests that parents are bringing their children to see the same providers they do, making it easier for them to access care for all family members in one location. Additional findings show that even though they may have other clinics closer to home, 11% of patients were served outside their county of residence, meaning they are specifically seeking CCBHCs for treatment.  

Naeyeart shared that CCBHCs exceeded statewide averages for Medicaid beneficiaries in the following areas: 

  1. Follow-up after emergency department visit for mental illness 
  2. Follow-up after emergency department visit for alcohol and other drug dependence 
  3. Follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness 
  4. Diabetes screening for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder who are using antipsychotic medications 
  5. Adherence to antipsychotic medications for individuals with schizophrenia 
  6. Plan all-cause readmission rate 
  7. Initiation and engagement of alcohol and other drug dependence treatment 

Innovation in Behavioral Health (IBH) Model 

The newest program launched is the IBH model. Julian shared that Michigan had been selected to participate in the IBH model in 2024 and began participation on Jan. 1, 2025. This is a cooperative agreement with CMS focused on improving the quality of care and behavioral and physical health outcomes for adults enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare with moderate to severe mental health conditions and substance use disorder. The goal is to assist in minimizing barriers to high quality integrated care. 

The core elements of the IBH framework include: 

  1. Care Integration – Behavioral health practice participants will screen, assess, refer, and treat patients as needed for the services they require. 
  2. Care Management – An interprofessional care team led by the behavioral health practice participant will identify and address multifaceted needs of patients for ongoing care. 
  3. Health Information Technology – Expansion of health information technology capacity through targeted investments in interoperability and tools (e.g. electronic health records) will allow participants to improve quality reporting and data sharing. 

The primary objectives of this program are to improve quality and delivery of whole person care, align care delivery and payment systems between Medicare and Medicaid, explore Medicaid payment strategy, develop value-based payment methodologies, and improve health information systems to improve quality and data sharing.  

This program aims to work with providers who are integrated and engaged with CCBHC or BHHs, sites that are Medicaid entities, providers that serve at the outpatient level with at least 25 people enrolled in Medicaid per month, and sites that provide mental health and or substance use disorder services at the outpatient level of care. The model has an eight-year performance period, including three years of planning (2025-2027) and five years for implementation (2028-2032). In the current planning phase, the focus is on building the structure for the model’s framework identifying stakeholders (e.g., state personnel, practice participants, community organizations, etc.), developing a recruiting strategy, designing a care delivery framework, establishing a Medicaid payment approach, and designing an effective health information technology plan. 

Workgroup participants inquired about any intention of collaborating with other CQIs like the Michigan  Mental Health Innovation Network for Clinical Design  (MI Mind) or community-based organizations like Salvation Army or the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) system. Workgroup participants expressed significant interest in being involved with this model as participant partners.

MVC Health in Action Workgroup: Aug. 28, 2025

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members. Please reach out to MVC by email if you are interested in being a workgroup presenter or submit a presentation proposal here. 

0
View Post
July Workgroups Highlight Sepsis Compliance Process Improvements and Patient Satisfaction Excellence

July Workgroups Highlight Sepsis Compliance Process Improvements and Patient Satisfaction Excellence

In July, MVC hosted two virtual workgroup presentations – the first, a rural health workgroup focused on how a sepsis compliance initiative was developed and implemented in a critical access hospital setting. The second, a post-discharge follow-up workgroup, presented a small acute care hospital’s journey to patient satisfaction excellence. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month, covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehab, rural health, preoperative testing and health in action.

Rural Health Workgroup July 8, 2025

MVC hosted a rural health workgroup with a presentation by Victoria Durr, BSN, RN, Infection Prevention Coordinator from Scheurer Health. The presentation spotlighted a targeted sepsis compliance initiative and shared key strategies, lessons learned, and outcomes tailored to rural healthcare.

Meeting sepsis bundle compliance requirements set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) is not only vital for reimbursement and regulatory alignment but also directly tied to improved patient mortality outcomes. As Durr explained, rural hospitals face unique challenges to improving sepsis compliance including agency coverage, fewer staff, and limited diagnostic tools.

As a part of her initial assessment of SEP-1 bundle compliance at Scheurer Health, Durr evaluated her staff’s understanding of the sepsis bundle components and found significant knowledge gaps. Other challenges faced by Schurer Health included limited space to admit directly from the emergency department (ED), an inconsistent sepsis census, and changing admitting privileges. These challenges contribute to downstream impacts to sepsis compliance including limited staff awareness and training, changes to lab orders, and transitions in continuity of care.

In July of 2024, Durr began working through each issue one-by-one with the help of department leadership. She outlined specific strategies Scheurer Health has used to improve compliance including:

  1. Implementation of structured training and process changes to standardize sepsis detection across emergency, inpatient, and inpatient care units
  2. Employed a team-based strategy, pairing clinicians and quality improvement leads to reinforce consistent sepsis protocols across inpatient workflows
  3. Leveraged data analytics to identify gaps and monitor compliance in real time

One key proactive tool Durr developed was a step-wise sepsis worksheet for nursing staff to follow in the case of a sepsis patient (see Figure 1, access PDF here). While this form is not required, in those cases when it has been utilized, Durr has found 100% SEP-1 compliance. A similar summary guide was created for physicians to optimize work flows (see PDF here).

Figure 1. Step-Wise Sepsis Worksheet for Nursing

Step-Wise Sepsis Worksheet for Nursing

While Durr notes she has only evaluated data for sepsis cases dating back to July of 2024, she has seen a shift in the areas of SEP-1 non-compliance over time. Analysis revealed that some areas of non-compliance have improved while others have worsened (Figure 2). For example, between Q3 2024 and Q4 2024, non-compliance with antibiotic delivery within a three-hour window significantly declined, while non-compliance with blood cultures being drawn after antibiotic administration increased. However, by Q1 2025 when almost all the strategies outlined above had been implemented, the distribution of SEP-1 non-compliance areas became relatively even. Durr notes that real-time tracking has allowed her team to pinpoint manageable areas of improvement and inform their next steps.

Figure 2. Tracking Areas of SEP-1 Non-Compliance

Tracking Areas of SEP-1 Non-Compliance, Q3 2024 - Q1 2025

In the future, Durr notes Scheurer Health will continue to improve SEP-1 compliance through the implementation of a SEP-1 orientation with newly hired ED and acute care unit nurses, the creation of a standardized nurse handoff report, and continued tracking and team report outs on various metrics including length of stay (LOS), mortality, and sepsis related readmissions.

The workgroup presentation and follow-up discussion not only emphasized specific challenges to improving SEP-1 compliance at a rural health center but also offered solutions. Some of the solutions shared with attendees included recommendations to:

  1. Standardize workflows and checklists to build consistency across units
  2. Create on-demand education modules
  3. Utilize checklists available through the electronic medical records (EMR)
  4. Optimize nursing and physician champions
  5. Use data dashboards for real-time feedback

Rural Health Workgroup July 8, 2025 Recording

Post Discharge Follow Up Workgroup July 24, 2025

MVC’s second workgroup in July featured a presentation by Sara Hagerman BSN, RN, Quality Performance Improvement Specialist for University of Michigan Health-Sparrow at the Clinton, Carson, and Lansing sites. The presentation outlined the various pathways UMH Sparrow Carson has taken to improve their Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (HCAHPS) scores.

HCAHPS is a tool developed by CMS that measures patient satisfaction. The survey consists of 27 questions that measure different aspects of patient care, including communication with providers, hospital environment, medication management, transitions from hospital to home care, and discharge planning. The survey is administered at various points throughout a patient’s stay, and results are used to compare hospitals on a national level.

Hagerman explains that starting about one year ago, the University of Michigan Health-Sparrow Carson devised a plan to not only improve HCAHPS scores but also to decrease readmissions. To do this, they focused on three primary areas:

  1. Evaluation of social determinates of health (SDoH)
  2. Individualized discharge planning
  3. Care facilitator follow-up

After collecting SDoH metrics in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for about a year, the team aggregated this data to determine the greatest needs within their patient population. They also specifically looked for corresponding readmission cases to determine if readmissions were contributed to by social needs. Hagerman notes they found food insecurity (3.9%), housing instability (4.2%), and transportation needs (3.9%) to be the most common social factors impacting their community.

Transitioning from a micro to a macro-level, University of Michigan Health-Sparrow Carson senior executives next worked with their community partners to support improved transportation and food assistance resources at the local level. They collaborated with local programs to identify new resources for transportation and food assistance and developed pathways to connect patients directly with these resources prior to discharge.

With these resources in place, the team turned to tailoring individualized patient discharge plans. At UMH Sparrow Carson, nearly 90% of patients discharged have a scheduled follow-up appointment with their primary care provider (PCP) prior to leaving the hospital. And for those without a confirmed PCP, teams set a goal to follow-up within 3-7 days or less. Other components of the individualized discharge plans include:

  • Review of SDoH screening and arrangement for appropriate support services
  • Review of home care instructions, medications, and patient education
  • Post-discharge contact information and call-back within 72 hours

Lastly, Hagerman described the third component of their program triad: care facilitators. Care facilitators are nurses embedded in primary care offices whose primary goal is to identify and support chronically ill patients. They can support care transitions, medication management, patient education, and enhance overall experience. Care facilitators can also enroll patients in UMH Sparrow’s Chronic Care Management Program.

Benefits to enrollment in the Chronic Care Management Program include improved care coordination, increased patient engagement, and reduced hospitalizations. Hagerman points to a readmission rate of 5.9% thus far in 2025, compared to a readmission rate in 2024 of 6.95% as evidence of the positive impact this program has had. However, Hagerman notes there are limitations to the availability of this program to patients due to the cost of patient copays.

When it comes to improving HCAHPS scores, Hagerman noted that perhaps the most important lesson learned in this process has been to ensure team members are aware of the content of HCAHPS surveys. “It’s important to understand what patients will be asked about in order to better address potential issues up front”, noted Hagerman and she’s encouraged her team to become more knowledgeable about the survey. Additionally, engaging an interdisciplinary team and sharing data is especially useful to ensure communication and continued progress. The UMH Sparrow Carson leadership team meets in person at their strategy huddle board every other week to discuss progress and next steps (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Tier 2 Strategy Huddle Board

UMH Sparrow Carson leadership team strategy huddle board

Post Discharge Follow Up Workgroup July 24, 2025 Recording

MVC’s July workgroups specifically highlighted successful quality initiatives at small rural and acute care hospitals in Michigan. Their insights provide a basic understanding of the unique struggles these hospitals face to implement and maintain quality improvement.

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, successes, initiatives and solution-focused ideas with fellow MVC members. Interested in presenting? Please reach out to us by email or submit a presentation proposal here.

0
View Post
June Workgroups Highlight Organizational Structure Impacts on Cardiac Rehab and Measuring System Quality

June Workgroups Highlight Organizational Structure Impacts on Cardiac Rehab and Measuring System Quality

In June, MVC hosted two virtual workgroup presentations – the first, a cardiac rehab workgroup focused on how healthcare organizational structures impact the effectiveness of cardiac rehab operations. The second workgroup, health in action, was a continuation of the recent MVC spring collaborative-wide meeting (CWM) presentation and discussion on How Should We Measure System Quality? The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month, covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehab, rural health, preoperative testing and health in action.

Cardiac Rehab Workgroup June 10, 2025

MVC hosted a cardiac rehab workgroup with a presentation by Gregory Scharf, BS, ACSM-CEP, AACVPR-CCRP from MyMichigan Health System. Scharf is the Cardiopulmonary Rehab System Manager for nine cardiac rehab and eight pulmonary rehab programs that serve 25 counties in Michigan. In addition to his role with MyMichigan, Scharf is also the vice president of the northern region of the Michigan Society for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (MSCVPR). With his experience and knowledge, Scharf shared detailed insight into how healthcare organizational structure impacts the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation operations.

Organizational Structures & Impact

Many cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation programs experience disjointed connections within healthcare organization structures.  According to a recent MSCVPR state poll, up to 20% of the state’s cardiac rehab (CR) programs were structured under a non-cardiovascular related service. Scharf polled the MVC workgroup audience to see where their cardiac rehab programs fell within their organizational structure and found that out of the 21 responses, 11 sites had their CR program under Cardiology/Cardiovascular service, three under respiratory service, four under cardiopulmonary service, one under diagnostic imaging, one under cardiovascular/neurology, and one did not have an onsite CR program.

Scharf noted that in his experience, many of the structures and managerial roles of cardiac rehab programs varied across sites. Cardiac rehab managers included an obstetrics/emergency room nurse manager, physical therapy manager, respiratory services supervisor, and a cardiovascular services manager who was also the echocardiogram technician. The lack of consistency in who should manage a cardiac rehabilitation program adds to the challenges within the healthcare organizational structure.

Supporting Cardiac & Pulmonary Rehab Programs

How can cardiac rehab be strategically aligned within a system? Main organizational connections for CR programs can be successful if placed under the umbrella of cardiovascular services (testing, heart failure clinic, open heart surgery, structural heart surgery, electrophysiology, and vascular), and rehabilitation services (occupational/physical therapy, etc.). Misalignment may occur if the organization’s strategies and objectives are disconnected between service areas, for example:

  1. Communication breaking down across the system
  2. Advocates for the CR service lack authority for change
  3. There are conflicts between service resources and access to space based on organizational leadership structure (OT/PT/CR)

A challenge for smaller sites may be that their organization is not large enough to support the typical structure of large health systems. At MyMichigan the CR program functions with 30 clinical staff for all sites whereas PT has more than 1,000 clinicians. These kinds of discrepancies may cause programs like cardiac rehab to be placed under misaligned service structures due to convenience (staff availability, resource availability) versus a more appropriate setting.

Important questions to ask about your site’s cardiac rehab program structure:

  1. Who is responsible for your cardiac rehab operations?
  2. Are they responsible for non-cardiac rehab departments as well?
  3. Who are the cardiac rehab subject matter experts (SME) and do they have authority to make changes?

SMEs may vary in experience and knowledge, especially when looking at smaller healthcare sites. These SMEs may only have secondary or limited experience with cardiac rehab services, which can impact how successful the program is. One way to help support staff in these positions is to encourage continuing education programs and certifications related to cardiac rehabilitation.

Understanding the Anatomy of the Referral

Over the past 10 years, MyMichigan has seen a significant increase in referral rates for cardiac rehab. Unfortunately, an increase in referrals does not always equate to an increase in patient participation. Some examples of why this may happen include referral delays, missing referral information (no qualifying diagnosis, or no co-signing MD/DO), or a referral being sent with the patient information but no signed order (inactionable) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Common Referral Delay Examples

Common Referral Delay Examples

When referrals are completed incorrectly, CR program staff must do the leg work to reconnect with the referring provider and make sure they receive a complete referral for their patient. MyMichigan faxes a Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) Referral & Evaluation Order back to the referring provider to complete and return before the patient can be seen for cardiac rehab. This extra step can impact patient recovery and create added strain on the workforce for multiple healthcare sites.

MVC Data Analytics Resources & Support

Wanting to take a deeper look at cardiac rehab claims data, MyMichigan Health System collaborated with the MVC team including Emily Bair, Site Engagement Coordinator, Julia Mantey, Sr. Data Analyst, and Jiaying Zhang, Data Analyst. The MVC analysts created custom reports that helped visualize where MyMichigan’s CR patients were being referred to and which patients were being referred to their CR program from external sites.

Looking at MyMichigan sites they found that approximately 94% of the patients that discharged from the MyMichigan Midland Medical Center for any of the Michigan Cardiac Rehab Network (MiCR) Main five Conditions (AMI, PCI, CABG, SAVR, TAVR) ended up staying within the MyMichigan system cardiac rehab program. Additionally, they looked at what locations MyMichigan cardiac rehab patients come from across the state. Approximately 58% of CR patients are internal referrals and 41% are from external referrals, almost doubling patient population in MyMichigan’s cardiac rehab program. This also put a spotlight on how much this system’s cardiac rehab program impacted patient populations of external healthcare sites/systems in the state.

Key Take Aways

  • What internal barriers exist due to your organizational structure?
  • Is communication getting to those that impact change?
  • Understand what steps need to be completed between referral and scheduling the patient appointment
  • Understand the process for referrals that leave the system/site

Health in Action Workgroup June 26, 2025

In late June MVC Director Hari Nathan, MD, PhD presented on how quality could be measured at a system level. This was a continuation from his interactive presentation at our spring CWM earlier this year, How Should We Measure System Quality? This “Part 2” workgroup included breakout groups and focused topics for discussion.

Advantages of Health Systems

Dr. Nathan shared several advantages that health systems have in the world of quality improvement that could be utilized, such as being able to right-size care and services at sites, having internal selective referrals as an option, avoiding low-volume surgeries, creating “focused factories,” disseminating best practices, and being able to have a big impact on attributed populations (Figure 2).

Health systems have the ability to address barriers to care on a larger scale, for example improving electronic health record integration between sites and being able to integrate telehealth across the system. Or by collecting data on various patient populations, a system has the potential to develop and expand its population health program. Utilizing the strengths of a system can benefit individual healthcare sites and improve patient care.

Figure 2. Advantages of Health Systems

Advantages of Health Systems

It is important to begin challenging systems to become more than just a sum of their parts – rather, to function as a cohesive unit. How do we create the right incentives for hospital systems to improve quality and costs? What metrics should be measured? These are just a few of the questions posed by Dr. Nathan as the workgroup audience prepared to go into breakout session discussions.

At MVC’s spring CWM in May of this year, audience members were asked “What is your organization doing at a system-level that you would want to be measured on and/or receive credit for improving?”. The most popular responses included: CMS 5 Star Measures, balancing length of stay (LOS) and readmissions, infection prevention, and sepsis outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality/end of life care).

Based on the CWM responses, four breakout session topics were chosen (readmissions & balancing LOS, safety, infection prevention, sepsis outcomes), and participants were asked to think about and discuss “What is YOUR organization working on at a system level that you would want to be measured on and/or receive credit for improving?”. Based on their poll responses, participants were sent into breakout groups to discuss their topic more in depth (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Breakout Session Survey Questions

photo with two breakout session survey questions

Readmissions & Balancing LOS

Members expressed great interest in identifying opportunities to incentivize process measures. Currently tracked metrics that were shared included order set utilization, care coordination, evaluating daily readmission risk reports, and transitions to home care. It was noted however, that these metrics may be difficult to track via claims data. Another system-wide metric discussed was the percentage of patients being seen by their primary care physician one week post discharge. The measure of success could be either achievement (outperform MVC All) or improvement (improve on system metric compared to previous measure).

Some barriers to implementing these processes as a system would be system-wide financial support for care coordination and nurse navigators. These positions are typically site specific and funded through the site’s individual budget.

Safety

During this breakout session members discussed some of the interests their sites/systems had around tracking safety metrics across the system. Sometimes a system can be different than just multiple hospitals under the same umbrella. Oaklawn Hospital, for example, is a single hospital site, but their goal is to align better with their primary care offices which requires a systems approach.

When looking at safety measures, Henry Ford Health shared ideas on how measuring or tracking a patient’s nutritional status might be valuable, as well as physical or occupational therapy consults for falls. Patients with a hip fracture from a fall tend to have longer hospital stays, this could be tracked by LOS codes such as weakness or loss of balance.

Infection Prevention

Members discussed some of the successful methods they have been implementing so far with their infection prevention initiatives. ProMedica Charles & Virginia Hickman shared they use a hub and spoke model where the sites have a system level clinical risk department that helps oversee essential hospital acquired infection data (using PowerBI, a data visualization program). This program enables a drill down for the different hospital leaders to design and implement quality improvement initiatives at their site.

At the system level leaders review data to identify opportunities and coordinate with hospital quality leads to implement improvement strategies, maintaining an upstream and downstream approach. In the UP Health system, they use a collaborative model involving regular reporting and discussion of quality markers among hospitals under the LifePoint organization, with resource sharing and active discussion facilitated by calls that include Duke University Health System partners.

Sepsis Outcomes

Members shared that their health systems have hospital level sepsis committees that meet once per month to review sepsis cases, as well as system level sepsis committees that include a representative from each site that meet monthly or quarterly to review sepsis cases. One of the ways that members are tracking their sepsis cases across the system is by tracking when sepsis patients go from “door to initial antibiotic received,” since research has shown this to be the biggest impact on reducing sepsis related mortality.

Sepsis compliance is also an important metric that systems are tracking to meet CMS standards. Sites within a system track sepsis compliance metrics and review them monthly both site by site and system wide. Through the group discussion, the idea of tracking the associated order sets for sepsis cases through MVC claims data may be interesting to view at a system level (though singling out order sets in claims data may be difficult).

Wrap Up

The breakout sessions not only helped to highlight what health systems are currently doing to track quality across their sites but also gave some insight into what metrics could be utilized as performance-based incentives in the future.

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members. Please reach out to us by email if you are interested in being a workgroup presenter or submit a presentation proposal here.

0
View Post
May Workgroups Highlight Sepsis Predictive Models and Post-Surgical Early Ambulation

May Workgroups Highlight Sepsis Predictive Models and Post-Surgical Early Ambulation

In May, MVC hosted two virtual workgroup presentations – the first, a sepsis workgroup focused on Covenant Health’s strategies and successes in improving sepsis bundle compliance under Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reporting standards. The second, a health in action workgroup, focused on Michigan Medicine’s efforts to advance post-surgical recovery through early ambulation with the help of care path and command center supported real-time notifications. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehab, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action.

Sepsis Workgroup May 13, 2025

Improving CMS sepsis compliance is a national priority; hospitals that succeed not only avoid penalties but – more importantly – save patient lives. In her presentation, Amy Lorenz, RN, BAS, MPA, Lead QI Specialist and Sepsis Team Leader for Covenant Healthcare pointed out that a CMS compliance score review in January 2021 of just 64% predicated their site’s interest in pursuing methods to improve sepsis compliance.

To start, Covenant Healthcare reviewed the number of sepsis Best Practices Advisory (BPA) alerts (or OurPractice Advisory or OPAs) firing in the background of their Electronic Medical Records (EMR) based on Modified Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) Criteria. The numerous alerts lead to interruptions in workflow, alert fatigue, and frustration.

With the help of their EMR and IT teams, Covenant Health decided to research and validate the use of a predictive model available through EPIC called BPA Level 8. The predictive model is a ruled based, logical scoring system that relies on various criteria such as patient medication orders, lab values, age, and comorbidities to assess the risk of sepsis development for any patient. The predictive model also incorporates non-specific SIRS criteria and additional exclusion criteria (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Covenant Healthcare Base Sepsis Care Path Level 8 Criterion for Exclusion

Covenant Healthcare Base Sepsis Care Path Level 8 Criterion for Exclusion

With the replacement of the SIRS Criteria with the Predictive Model in Q3 of 2023, Covenant Health saw the number of interruptive alerts drop from 90-100,000 to just 30,000 per month in 2024. Lorenz notes that this reduction in interruptive alerts alone was a relief to staff. However, they have additionally seen other positive outcomes including:

  • A climbing RN action rate (10% to 24.5%),
  • An increase in accuracy in sepsis diagnosis (9-18% to 50-60%), and
  • A reduction in the number of sepsis flags missed by the model (only 1-2 per month)

These outcomes together suggest that in addition to reducing inefficient alerts, patients are increasingly receiving optimal and appropriate care. Additional outcomes of this initiative highlighted in the presentation included the development of a linked automatic blood culture and/or lactate level order set within the EMR. Additionally, with support from medical leadership, this order set can now be approved by RNs eliminating a common stopgap in care.

A multidisciplinary approach with regular staff feedback, education, and leadership support further drove engagement and compliance of staff. Another Covenant Healthcare team member on the call, Beth Turnbull, Lead Senior EMR Applications Analyst pointed out that nursing leadership was involved in the implementation of this predictive model from the beginning. Nursing also engaged in evaluating data dashboards, routine compliance audits, and collaborative huddles to monitor sepsis bundle adherence and maintain accountability.

While Covenant Healthcare’s predictive model is specific to their EMR program EPIC, attendees noted that there are other predictive model options available. Ultimately, the key takeaways from this presentation used to improve sepsis bundle compliance include:

  1. Identify and analyze fall outs: to prioritize and target education
  2. Deploy an easy-to-access knowledge base to support clinical decision-making: by creating a one-page resource or visual dashboards
  3. Promote transparency: by increasing access to real-time data and routine collaborative huddles to help keep teams accountable
  4. Secure leadership backing: but also empower front-line workers to make quality efforts stick
  5. Measure and validate interventions: based on data and compliance trends

Health in Action Workgroup May 29, 2025

The health in action workgroup featured a joint presentation by Heidi O’Neill, MS, Project Manager Lead; Mary Nowlin, PA-C; and Niki Farquhar, MSE, Project Management Lead from Michigan Medicine. Their presentation centered on the power of interdisciplinary collaboration, data-driven processes, and scalable strategies to embed post-surgical real-time notifications for delayed post-operative ambulation into Michigan Medicine’s post-surgical clinical pathways.

In 2019, Michigan Medicine started a multidisciplinary quality initiative supporting teams across the site to improve outcomes called Advancing Care, Treatment Efficiency, Innovation, Value and Teamwork for Surgical Episodes (or ACTIVATE). O’Neill explained that ACTIVATE places emphasis on teamwork, innovation, and communication to drive patient experience and outcomes. By focusing on units/ services with high observed/expected (O/E) length of stay (LOS >1.0), high surgical volume, and positive leadership engagement; the ACTIVATE team ensured that each unit they invested in had room to improve and support to achieve their goals.

Post-surgical early ambulation, or getting patients up and walking as soon as possible after surgery, has been shown to decrease the length of hospital stay. Common ACTIVATE interventions to promote early ambulation include patient education videos, transport triggers for ambulation from stretcher to bed, documentation of ambulation within four hours, and the development of detailed clinical pathways (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Common ACTIVATE Interventions to Promote Post-Surgical Early Ambulation

Table: Common ACTIVATE Interventions to Promote Post-Surgical Early Ambulation

Additionally, Nowlin explained that as the ACTIVATE team spread their interventions across various services, from colorectal to spine then to more general surgical units (4B and the 5th floor) they noticed that there wasn’t a consistent order set for early or sustained ambulation. To ensure consistent documentation, the ACTIVATE team developed an early ambulation order set to be used across all units and started tracking their impact.

ACTIVATE’s efforts to outline post-surgical clinical pathways and optimization of documentation of ambulation eventually led to their collaboration with Michigan Medicine’s Capacity Operations Real Time Engagement Center (or M2C2), launched in November 2022. M2C2 is a state-of-the-art command center designed to act as the hub for Michigan Medicine operations and innovation by leveraging real-time visualization of patient milestone achievement based on EPIC data. Their goal is to not only improve LOS but to ultimately increase the percentage of patients who achieve post-surgical milestones (e.g., early ambulation) in a timely manner. Farquhar explained, M2C2’s integration of care paths and responsive actions when patients deviate from their expected progression are paving the way to reduced LOS, safe discharge, and increased bed capacity.

Figure 3. M2C2 Post-Surgical Procedure Care Path Framework

M2C2 Post-Surgical Procedure Care Path Framework

To develop the post-surgical care path framework (Figure 3), Nowlin and Farquhar met with other key stakeholders to ensure that ACTIVATE and M2C2 efforts to optimally progress patients through the early ambulation node of the post-surgical path were synced. Understanding the goal ACTIVATE had previously set for ambulation within four hours of exiting the OR, M2C2 set alerts for patients that had no documented ambulation by three hours post-surgery to allow for a one-hour intervention window. During this period, M2C2 clinical expeditors (CEs) conduct a patient chart review and then contact the nurse and medical provider to discuss barriers to ambulation.

Within the first quarter of the new M2C2 alert for ambulation going live, nearly 1280 alerts were logged: 559 resulting in contact with the care team to assess barriers to ambulation. When compared to baseline data, a 23.1% decrease in median time to first ambulation was observed for ICU post op patients. For non-ICU post-op patients, a 7.1% decrease was observed. Additionally, a 0.34 day decrease in average LOS was observed. These results indicate opportunities for enhanced patient recovery, shorter LOS, and better overall patient outcomes.

Lastly, Farquhar outlined opportunities to continue to progress with early ambulation including:

  1. Refine exclusions for patients that are not appropriate for early ambulation
  2. Improve visibility of ambulation status and timeline in EPIC
  3. Explore improved capture of ambulation in clinical notes
  4. Enhance alert communication to support nursing
  5. Continue to work on nurse-to-nurse APS consult orders for pain management control

MVC’s May workgroups exemplify efforts from two different sites to place value on interdisciplinary teams, the importance of data visibility, and alignment across clinical, operational, and administrative units to ensure optimal quality improvement.

If you are interested in pursuing a healthcare improvement program, MVC has data specialists available to help navigate and create custom analytics reports. Please reach out to us by email if you would like to learn more about MVC data or engagement offerings!

0
View Post
April Workgroups Highlight Preoperative Testing and MVC’s Process Measures Report & Registry Review

April Workgroups Highlight Preoperative Testing and MVC’s Process Measures Report & Registry Review

In April, MVC hosted two virtual workgroup presentations – the first, a preoperative testing workgroup focused on the CQI collaboration with the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) to reduce preoperative testing rates for low-risk surgeries, supplemented by a brief overview of the RITE-Size Initiative and how MVC sites can benefit from participating. The second workgroup, health in action, focused on the recent MVC Process Measure Report and included an overview of how to utilize the MVC registry. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehab, rural health, preoperative testing and health in action.

Preoperative Testing Workgroup April 8, 2025

Jennifer Bennett, MBA, BSN, RN, Lead Quality and Patient Safety Coordinator for Henry Ford Health (HFH) Madison Heights – Warren, shared that in 2017 the estimated cost for unnecessary preoperative testing and treatment was $200 billion nationwide (Healthcare Finance News, 2017). Additionally, in 2014, PerryUndem and the Choosing Wisely Campaign completed a phone survey of over 600 different physicians (primary care and specialists) across the country. This survey inquired whether providers believed unnecessary tests and procedures in the healthcare system were a serious problem and who or what entity should be responsible for leading improvement efforts.

Results showed that the top reasons providers ordered the unnecessary tests were because of malpractice concerns, belief that it should be done “just to be safe,” patients insisting on having the test, or they were trying to keep patients happy (Figure 1). Providers also believed they were the best suited to address overuse of unnecessary tests and procedures in the healthcare system.

Figure 1. Reasons Why Physicians Order Unnecessary Tests Poll

horizontal bar chart: poll results of Reasons Why Physicians Order Unnecessary Tests

Physicians surveyed selected several solutions to try and address the issue including malpractice reform, having specific evidence-based recommendations in a format that would be easy to discuss with the patient, having more time to discuss alternatives with patients, and changing the system of financial rewards for preoperative testing metrics (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Possible Preoperative Testing Reduction Strategies Poll

horizontal bar chart: Possible Preoperative Testing Reduction Strategies Poll results

In collaboration with MSQC, Henry Ford Health Madison Heights-Warren launched a pilot program in 2023 to implement appropriate preoperative screening for low-risk surgeries, including breast lumpectomy – partial mastectomy, minor hernia, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Initial data used for setting a baseline understanding showed that preoperative testing rates for these procedures across the state had a wide range of 8% - 85%, and testing before low-risk surgeries was noted to be common for greater than 50% of patients undergoing at least one test.

Using testing recommendations from several notable academic medical societies, Henry Ford and MSQC were able to build an outline of recommendations for blood work (labs), electrocardiogram (ECG) tests, cardiac stress tests, and chest x-rays. A decision tree was developed to aid providers in choosing a test that was appropriate for a patient prior to their procedure (Figure 3).

This decision tree took into consideration what American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) class the patient fell under. The ASA classes (ASA 1 – 5) are determined by physical status of the patient (Do they have comorbidities, age related issues, life expectancy if they don’t have the procedure, etc.?) The higher the ASA class level the more likely the patient will require additional testing due to chronic disease processes being present. Recommendations for preoperative testing on patients that are an ASA class 3 or above were combined into a guidance chart (Figure 4) to aid in test order decision making.

Figure 4. Suggested Preoperative Tests for Patients Undergoing Low-Risk Surgery Who are ASA 3 or Above*

Chart: Suggested Preoperative Tests for Patients Undergoing Low-Risk Surgery Who are ASA 3 or Above*

*This chart does not replace clinical judgment and is intended as guidance only.

Henry Ford Health Madison Heights-Warren reported several successes during their pilot program. These include:

  1. Engaging stakeholders: They successfully engaged various stakeholders—including patients, providers, office staff, CQIs, and IT—in meaningful conversations and collaborative problem-solving.
  2. Acknowledging work: The team emphasized the critical importance of the work being done and its alignment with the best interests of patients.
  3. Cost savings: They highlighted the potential for significant overall cost savings resulting from the program's implementation.
  4. Revising protocols: Protocols were revised to incorporate new best practices for preoperative testing, ensuring enhanced care quality.

Some of the barriers that arose included communication breakdowns, a lack of education or understanding, trying to engage and include providers that were contracted private practice and may not have the same electronic medical record (EMR) access, and not having a complete set of data due to claims data delays (Medicare/Medicaid).

Results

Prior to the pilot program launching (March 2022 - March 2023), HFH Madison Heights-Warren's preoperative testing rates were at 37.8% and after implementation (March 2023 – September 2024) their preoperative testing rate reduced to 31%. Their next steps include partnering with the RITE-Size initiative to develop future preoperative testing goals and re-engaging with stakeholders at other Henry Ford Health sites.

RITE-Size Initiative Overview

MVC Program Director Hari Nathan, MD, PhD, gave a brief overview of the RITE-Size initiative. The goal for right-sizing testing before elective surgery is to identify patient risk-level, match patient risk-level to pre-op testing, and perform a safe and successful low-risk surgery. This initiative is a grant funded collaborative partnership between Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC), and the Michigan Program on Value Enhancement (MPrOVE) (Figure 5). The plan is to learn from the clinical and claims data, consider clinician input, and to recommend high-value tests based on this information.

Figure 5. RITE-Size Member Offerings

If your site is interested in participating in the RITE-size preoperative testing program, please reach out by email to the MVC Coordinating Center.

Health in Action Workgroup April 24, 2025

The health in action workgroup featured a presentation by MVC’s Site Engagement Coordinator Emily Bair, MS, MPH, RDN, CSP. The presentation focused on the recent MVC Process Measure Report and included an overview of how to utilize the MVC registry.

Traditionally, MVC push reports have focused on just one condition, surgery, or metric at a time. The process measures push report was developed to pull together information on multiple conditions to provide individualized, comprehensive, and actionable insights for MVC members (Figure 6). This report was provided to sites that are participating in the MVC portion of the BCBSM P4P program as well as non-P4P sites. This allows sites to evaluate their progress on all eligible measures, not just the metrics selected for the P4P program year.

Figure 6. MVC Conditions

MVC Conditions

This process measures report includes 90-day inpatient or surgical episodes created from index admissions between January 2022 – December 2023. Exclusions included patients who had an inpatient hospital transfer, died in the hospital during their index hospitalization, or were discharged to hospice. Payors included Blue Care Network HMO, commercial and Medicare Advantage, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan PPO commercial, and Medicare Advantage, Medicare, and Michigan Medicaid.

Within the report each site has an individualized sociodemographic overview table that displays the patient population for each process measure cohort (Figure 7). This table illustrates the distribution pattern of the population within each process measure but is not necessarily indicative of the distribution of patient demographics for the outcome of interest. One detail to note is that the race/ethnicity denominator includes all patients but may not add up to 100% due to the exclusion of other race/ethnicity categories.

Figure 7. MVC Process Measure Report for Hospital A (blinded data)

Table: MVC Process Measure Report for Hospital A (blinded data)

In addition to race/ethnicity categories, MVC is populating data on patient zip codes (categorized as prosperous, comfortable, mid-tier, at-risk, or distressed according to the Economic Innovation Group’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI) 2015-19. The DCI incorporates economic indicators such as education, employment, and income as well as patient age and gender. These are some of the first steps being taken to incorporate sociodemographic information into our analyses, deepening our understanding of the patient community's needs and awareness to support further health equity efforts.

Registry Review

How can we use the MVC registry to investigate certain metrics or patient demographics?

  1. Search for specific metrics such as preoperative testing rates at your site. Are they higher or lower than the MVC All average?
  2. Investigate certain procedures for which tests are being ordered more frequently than others
  3. Drill down to see if certain patient age categories are accumulating a higher testing rate than others

For example, when looking at the multi-payer preop testing reports, helpful filters to utilize would be the following:

  1. Episode start dates – selecting an exact date range
  2. Payers – choosing the appropriate payers for the date range you are looking at (noting that Medicare and Medicaid data may be 6 months to 1 year behind BCBSM)
  3. Procedures – choose the desired procedure(s) you want to investigate
  4. Tests – choose the desired tests you want to investigate in relation to the procedure
  5. Patient characteristics – choose what age(s), gender, race/ethnicity, and comorbidities you want to include/exclude

Interested in joining the MVC registry?

Once you send a registry request the MVC team will confirm your request with your specified site’s MVC Site Coordinator (primary contact). Once confirmed you will be sent the MVC website confidentiality agreement (WCA), and upon receiving the completed WCA, MVC will provide a username and directions to login in via email.

If you are interested in pursuing a healthcare improvement program, MVC has data specialists available to help navigate and create custom analytics reports. Please reach out to us by email if you would like to learn more about MVC data or engagement offerings!