Neurocritical Care Performance Measures Derived from Electronic Health Record Data are Feasible and Reveal Site-Specific Variation: A CHoRUS Pilot Project.

BackgroundWe evaluated the feasibility and discriminability of recently proposed Clinical Performance Measures for Neurocritical Care (Neurocritical Care Society) and Quality Indicators for Traumatic Brain Injury (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI; CENTER-TBI) extracted from electronic health record (EHR) flowsheet data.MethodsAt three centers within the Collaborative Hospital Repository Uniting Standards (CHoRUS) for Equitable AI consortium, we examined consecutive neurocritical care admissions exceeding 24 h (03/2015-02/2020) and evaluated the feasibility, discriminability, and site-specific variation of five clinical performance measures and quality indicators: (1) intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring (ICPM) within 24 h when indicated, (2) ICPM latency when initiated within 24 h, (3) frequency of nurse-documented neurologic assessments, (4) intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCd) initiation within 24 h, and (5) latency to IPCd application. We additionally explored associations between delayed IPCd initiation and codes for venous thromboembolism documented using the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) system. Median (interquartile range) statistics are reported. Kruskal-Wallis tests were measured for differences across centers, and Dunn statistics were reported for between-center differences.ResultsA total of 14,985 admissions met inclusion criteria. ICPM was documented in 1514 (10.1%), neurologic assessments in 14,635 (91.1%), and IPCd application in 14,175 (88.5%). ICPM began within 24 h for 1267 (83.7%), with site-specific latency differences among sites 1-3, respectively, (0.54 h [2.82], 0.58 h [1.68], and 2.36 h [4.60]; p ConclusionsElectronic health record-derived reporting of neurocritical care performance measures is feasible and demonstrates site-specific variation. Future efforts should examine whether performance or documentation drives these measures, what outcomes are associated with performance, and whether EHR-derived measures of performance measures and quality indicators are modifiable.