Overview

Dr. Sample Physician

Previous Reporting Period: 04-2010 – 02-2019

Current Reporting Period: 02-2019 – 02-2020


PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Site: -

Release Date: April 2023

Version: v4.0

LENGTH OF STAY (MEDIAN)

3.3 days


My Previous Report Period


My Colleagues (Current)

3.4

3.2

7-DAY READMISSION (%)

3.8 %


My Previous Report Period


My Colleagues (Current)

4.8

7.1

30-DAY READMISSION (%)

17.2 %


My Previous Report Period


My Colleagues (Current)

13.2

18.1

ADVANCED IMAGING TESTS PER HOSPITALIZATION (MEAN)

1.38 tests


My Previous Report Period


My Colleagues (Current)

1.13

1.26

ROUTINE BLOODWORK TESTS PER HOSPITALIZATION (MEAN)

9.8 tests


My Previous Report Period


My Colleagues (Current)

10.5

9.0

APPROPRIATE RED BLOOD CELL TRANSFUSIONS (%)

64.0 %


My Previous Report Period


My Colleagues (Current)

88.5

79.3

MyPractice Report Guide

How to read MyPractice Reports

Quality Improvement

An overview for improvement methodologies

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about MyPractice Reports

My Patients

Column

Column

Patient Demographics

My Patients My Colleagues
Number of Unique Hospitalizations 217 6,655
Age, Median (25th-75th) 65 (52-77) 65 (49-79)
Female 45 % 46 %
High Comorbidity at Admission1 42 % 39 %
Admission on Weekends2 Fewer than 6 24 %
Admission at Night3 80 % 80 %
Admission by Season4
Spring 28 % 25 %
Summer 22 % 26 %
Fall 23 % 25 %
Winter 27 % 24 %
No Health Card Number 4 % 2 %
No Postal Code 5 % 4 %
Discharged to Long-Term Care Home5 4 % 2 %
Neighborhood-Level After Tax Income (000s), Median (25th-75th)6 39 (33-45) 40 (34-46)
Neighbourhood-Level Percent Visible Minority, Median (25th-75th)6 10 (8-13) % 10 (7-13) %
1 Charlson Comorbidity Index >= 2. See FAQ section How do we calculate comorbidity?
2 Admissions on Saturdays and Sundays
3 Admissions after 5:00 p.m. and before 8:00 a.m., including weekends
4 Meteorological seasons
5 Based on Institution To type in the CIHI DAD
6 Neighborhood-Level data are from Statistics Canada 2016 Census, linked at the level of census dissemination area
7 Cells with less than 6 admissions are suppressed for patient privacy. See FAQ section Why are some data not shown in the report?

Column

My Patients - Top Discharge Diagnoses

My Patients - All Discharge Diagnoses

Diagnosis Me (%) My Colleagues (%)
Pneumonia 6.5 6.4
COPD 5.5 5.2
Heart Failure 4.6 4.1
Urinary Tract Infection 4.6 4.5
Intestinal Infection 4.1 2.8
Other Liver Diseases 4.1 1.5
Acute and Unspecified Renal Failure 3.2 1.9
Adverse Effects of Medical Drugs 3.2 1.4
Pancreatic Disorders (not Diabetes) 3.2 1.7
GI Hemorrhage 2.8 3.1
Septicemia (except in labor) 2.8 1.3
Skin and Soft Tissue Infection 2.8 2.2
Syncope 2.8 1.6
DM Complications NA7 3.2
Alcohol-Related Disorders NA7 3.3
Bacterial Infection; Unspecified Site NA7 1.6
Delirium, Dementia, Cognitive Disorders NA7 2.3
HIV Infection NA7 0.6
Stroke NA7 1.8
Asthma NA7 0.9
Deficiency and Other Anemia NA7 0.9
Fever of Unknown Origin NA7 1.0
Infective Arthritis and Osteomyelitis (except that caused by Tuberculosis or Sexually Transmitted Disease) NA7 0.7
Other Gastrointestinal Disorders NA7 1.2
Other Lower Respiratory Disease NA7 1.2
Substance-Related Disorders NA7 0.5
Acute Myocardial Infarction NA7 0.2
Aspiration Pneumonitis; Food/Vomitus NA7 1.7
Biliary Tract Disease NA7 0.7
Cancer of Pancreas NA7 0.3
Cardiac Dysrhythmias NA7 0.9
Complication of Device; Implant or Graft NA7 0.6
Epilepsy; Convulsions NA7 1.2
Essential Hypertension NA7 0.9
Fluid and Electrolyte Disorders NA7 2.4
Gastroduodenal Ulcer (except Hemorrhage) NA7 0.2
Nausea and Vomiting NA7 0.7
Nonspecific Chest Pain NA7 0.8
Other NA7 2.1
Other Aftercare NA7 0.8
Other Connective Tissue Disease NA7 1.7
Other Fractures NA7 0.4
Other Injuries and Conditions Due to External Causes NA7 0.7
Other Upper Respiratory Infections NA7 0.6
Respiratory Failure; Insufficiency; Arrest (Adult) NA7 0.4
Sickle Cell Anemia NA7 1.0
Anxiety Disorders NA7 0.1
Cancer of Esophagus NA7 NA7
Coronary Atherosclerosis and Other Heart Disease NA7 0.5
Diseases of White Blood Cells NA7 0.7
Esophageal Disorders NA7 0.7
Genitourinary Symptoms and Ill-Defined Conditions NA7 0.4
Hepatitis NA7 0.2
Hyperplasia of Prostate NA7 NA7
Inflammatory Conditions of Male Genital Organs NA7 NA7
Influenza NA7 1.3
Intestinal Obstruction without Hernia NA7 0.3
Intracranial Injury NA7 0.2
Mycoses NA7 0.2
Other Circulatory Disease NA7 0.5
Other Diseases of Kidney and Ureters NA7 0.1
Other Female Genital Disorders NA7 NA7
Other Nervous System Disorders NA7 1.0
Other and Unspecified Benign Neoplasm NA7 0.2
Parkinson’s Disease NA7 0.1
Pulmonary Heart Disease NA7 1.1
Secondary Malignancies NA7 1.1
Transient Cerebral Ischemia NA7 0.5
Abdominal Pain NA7 1.0
Acute Posthemorrhagic Anemia NA7 NA7
Allergic Reactions NA7 0.3
Anal and Rectal Conditions NA7 0.1
Blindness and Vision Defects NA7 NA7
Calculus of Urinary Tract NA7 NA7
Cancer of Brain and Nervous System NA7 NA7
Cancer of Breast NA7 NA7
Cancer of Bronchus; Lung NA7 0.3
Cancer of Colon NA7 0.1
Cancer of Liver and Intrahepatic Bile Duct NA7 0.1
Cancer of Other GI Organs; Peritoneum NA7 NA7
Cancer of Stomach NA7 0.1
Chronic Ulcer of Skin NA7 0.3
Coagulation and Hemorrhagic Disorders NA7 0.3
Complications of Surgical Procedures or Medical Care NA7 0.4
Conditions Associated with Dizziness or Vertigo NA7 0.9
Diabetes Mellitus without Complication NA7 0.2
Diverticulosis and Diverticulitis NA7 0.2
Gastritis and Duodenitis NA7 0.2
Gout and Other Crystal Arthropathies NA7 0.4
Headache; including Migraine NA7 0.2
Hemorrhoids NA7 NA7
Inflammation; Infection of Eye (except that caused by Tuberculosis or Sexually Transmitteddisease) NA7 NA7
Leukemias NA7 0.2
Lung Disease Due to External Agents NA7 NA7
Lymphadenitis NA7 NA7
Malaise and Fatigue NA7 0.5
Meningitis (except that caused by Tuberculosis or Sexually Transmitted Disease) NA7 0.1
Multiple Myeloma NA7 NA7
Multiple Sclerosis NA7 NA7
Neoplasms of Unspecified Nature or Uncertain Behavior NA7 NA7
Nephritis; Nephrosis; Renal Sclerosis NA7 0.1
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma NA7 0.2
Noninfectious Gastroenteritis NA7 0.2
Nutritional Deficiencies NA7 0.2
Open Wounds of Head; Neck; and Trunk NA7 NA7
Osteoarthritis NA7 0.2
Other Complications of Pregnancy NA7 NA7
Other Diseases of Veins and Lymphatics NA7 0.2
Other Disorders of Stomach and Duodenum NA7 0.2
Other Endocrine Disorders NA7 0.3
Other Hereditary and Degenerative Nervous System Conditions NA7 0.2
Other Infections; including Parasitic NA7 0.1
Other Inflammatory Condition of Skin NA7 NA7
Other Non-Traumatic Joint Disorders NA7 0.3
Other Nutritional; Endocrine; and Metabolic Disorders NA7 0.5
Other Screening for Suspected Conditions (not Mental Disorders or Infectious Disease) NA7 0.1
Other Skin Disorders NA7 0.2
Other Upper Respiratory Disease NA7 0.2
Pathological Fracture NA7 0.1
Peri-; Endo-; and Myocarditis; Cardiomyopathy (except that caused by Tuberculosis or Sexually Transmitted Disease) NA7 0.4
Peripheral and Visceral Atherosclerosis NA7 0.2
Peritonitis and Intestinal Abscess NA7 0.3
Phlebitis; Thrombophlebitis and Thromboembolism NA7 0.3
Pleurisy; Pneumothorax; Pulmonary Collapse NA7 0.5
Regional Enteritis and Ulcerative Colitis NA7 0.4
Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders NA7 NA7
Spondylosis; Intervertebral Disc Disorders; Other Back Problems NA7 0.7
Superficial Injury; Contusion NA7 NA7
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Connective Tissue Disorders NA7 0.3
Thyroid Disorders NA7 0.2
Tuberculosis NA7 0.1
Varicose Veins of Lower Extremity NA7 0.1
Viral Infection NA7 0.4

Column

Length of Stay

LENGTH OF STAY

Reporting Period: 02-2019 to 02-2020

Column

Column {vertical_layout : fill}

My Patients (Median)

3.3 days

50th Percentile Physician (Median)

3.3 days

25th Percentile Physician (Median)

3.0 days

Quality Improvement Activities

Click here for key actions to reduce length of stay

Length of stay is defined as the number of days from admission to discharge. The physician-level indicator is defined as the average (median) length of stay per hospitalization.

Length of stay includes alternate level of care days. Hospitalizations that were transferred in from, or transferred out to, another acute care institution are excluded from the calculation.



Column

How does the length of stay for my patients compare to that of my colleagues?

How has my practice changed over time?

Column

What are my patients’ lengths of stay (top conditions)?

Column

7-Day Readmission

7-DAY READMISSION

Reporting Period: 02-2019 to 02-2020

Column

Column {vertical_layout : fill}

My Patients (Rate)

3.8 %

50th Percentile Physician (Rate)

6.9 %

25th Percentile Physician (Rate)

6.5 %

Quality Improvement Activities

Click here for key actions to reduce 7-day readmission rate

7-day readmission is defined as an episode of care that was followed by readmission to any medical or intensive care service at a GeMQIN hospital within 7 days of discharge. The physician-level indicator is defined as the percentage of episodes of care that were followed by a 7-day readmission.

An episode of care refers to all contiguous inpatient hospitalizations to any medical or intensive care service within GeMQIN. For episodes of care involving acute care transfers, readmissions are attributed to the physician at the last hospital from which the patient was discharged before readmission. All hospitalizations with an invalid health card number are excluded because these encounters do not have a patient-level identifier, so readmission cannot be assigned. The following episodes of care are excluded: episodes with discharge as death, episodes with at least 1 record for palliative care as most responsible discharge diagnosis, episodes where a patient was transferred to and discharged from a hospital outside of the GeMQIN Network, episodes where the last record was self sign-out. The following are not counted as readmissions: episodes where the initial encounter was elective, episodes with at least 1 record for: chemotherapy for neoplasm, palliative care, obstetric delivery, medical assistance in dying. See FAQ section Why did the readmission rate from my previous report change? for specific updates to the definition of readmission compared to last report.



Column

How does the 7-day readmission rate for my patients compare to that of my colleagues?

How has my practice changed over time?

Column

What are my patients’ 7-day readmission rates (top conditions)?

Column

30-Day Readmission

30-DAY READMISSION

Reporting Period: 02-2019 to 02-2020

Column

Column {vertical_layout : fill}

My Patients (Rate)

17.2 %

50th Percentile Physician (Rate)

17.8 %

25th Percentile Physician (Rate)

16.9 %

Quality Improvement Activities

Click here for key actions to reduce 30-day readmission rate

30-day readmission is defined as an episode of care that was followed by readmission to any medical or intensive care service at a GeMQIN hospital within 30 days of discharge. The physician-level indicator is defined as the percentage of episodes of care that were followed by a 30-day readmission.

An episode of care refers to all contiguous inpatient hospitalizations to any medical or intensive care service within GeMQIN. For episodes of care involving acute care transfers, readmissions are attributed to the physician at the last hospital from which the patient was discharged before readmission. All hospitalizations with an invalid health card number are excluded because these encounters do not have a patient-level identifier, so readmission cannot be assigned. The following episodes of care are excluded: episodes with discharge as death, episodes with at least 1 record for palliative care as most responsible discharge diagnosis, episodes where a patient was transferred to and discharged from a hospital outside of the GeMQIN Network, episodes where the last record was self sign-out. The following are not counted as readmissions: episodes where the initial encounter was elective, episodes with at least 1 record for: chemotherapy for neoplasm, palliative care, obstetric delivery, medical assistance in dying. See FAQ section Why did the readmission rate from my previous report change? for specific updates to the definition of readmission compared to last report.



Column

How does the 30-day readmission rate for my patients compare to that of my colleagues?

How has my practice changed over time?

Column

What are my patients’ 30-day readmission rates (top conditions)?

Column

Advanced Imaging Tests

ADVANCED IMAGING TESTS

Reporting Period: 02-2019 to 02-2020

Column

Column {vertical_layout : fill}

My Patients (Mean)

1.38 tests per hospitalization

50th Percentile Physician (Mean)

1.23 tests per hospitalization

25th Percentile Physician (Mean)

1.19 tests per hospitalization

Quality Improvement Activities

Click here for key actions to support an appropriate number of CT, MRI, and Ultrasounds

Advanced imaging is defined as the number of CT, MRI, and ultrasound tests performed in a hospitalization. The physician-level indicator is defined as the average (mean) number of advanced imaging tests per hospitalization.

Interventional radiology is not included. This indicator does not include advanced imaging tests ordered in the emergency department.

Additional abbreviations: CT, computerized tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.



Column

How does the number of advanced imaging tests for my patients compare to that of my colleagues?

How has my practice changed over time?

Column

How many advanced imaging tests do my patients receive (top conditions)?

Column

Routine Bloodwork Tests

ROUTINE BLOODWORK TESTS

Reporting Period: 02-2019 to 02-2020

Column

Column {vertical_layout : fill}

My Patients (Mean)

9.8 tests per hospitalization

50th Percentile Physician (Mean)

9.0 tests per hospitalization

25th Percentile Physician (Mean)

8.8 tests per hospitalization

Quality Improvement Activities

Key actions to support an appropriate number of electrolyte and CBC tests

Routine bloodwork is defined as the number of electrolyte and complete blood count tests performed in a hospitalization. The physician-level indicator is defined as the average (mean) number of routine bloodwork tests per hospitalization.

This indicator does not include routine bloodwork tests in the emergency department.



Column

How does the number of routine bloodwork tests for my patients compare to that of my colleagues?

How has my practice changed over time?

Column

How many routine bloodwork tests do my patients have (top conditions)?

Column

Appropriate Red Blood Cell Transfusion

APPROPRIATE RED BLOOD CELL TRANSFUSIONS

Reporting Period: 02-2019 to 02-2020

Column

Column {vertical_layout : fill}

My Patients (Rate)

64.0 %

50th Percentile Physician (Rate)

80.8 %

25th Percentile Physician (Rate)

89.3 %

Quality Improvement Activities

Key actions to ensure blood transfusions are appropriate

Appropriate red blood cell transfusion is defined by a hemoglobin value less than 80 g/L within 48 hours prior to transfusion. The physician-level indicator is defined as the percentage of red blood cell transfusions that were appropriate.

This indicator considers the most recent hemoglobin value within 48 hours prior to transfusion. Red blood cell transfusions with no hemoglobin measurement within 48 hours prior to the transfusion are excluded. These scenarios are rare based on analyses of GEMINI data.

Additional abbreviations: RBC, red blood cell.



Column

How does the rate of appropriate RBC transfusions for my patients compare to that of my colleagues?

How has my practice changed over time?

Column

What is the rate of Appropriate RBC Transfusion for my patients? (top conditions)?

Column

Length of Stay (Acute and Total), 7-Day and 30 -Day Readmission

Column

Column

Length of Stay, 7-Day, and 30-Day Readmission

(Focus on Care Transitions)

Care transitions can occur at many different times and places throughout a person's health care journey, including during admission to hospital, referral to speciality care, discharge out of the emergency department or hospital, and admission to a long-term care facility from the person's home. Poorly coordinated care transitions often result in poor quality of care, compromised patient safety, unfavourable experiences of care, prolonged length of stay, and unplanned readmission to hospital.

Preventable causes of readmission can include:

  • Unclear or delayed transition plans and instructions
  • Conflicting plans and instructions from different providers
  • Medication errors, including dangerous drug interactions, duplications, or omissions

In Ontario, hospitals continue to focus on optimizing transitions, length of stay (LOS), and reducing unexpected readmission to hospital. To help reduce hospital readmission and LOS, the change ideas in Table 1 can help address major gaps in transition planning and care coordination. Readmission and LOS are complex indicators that require a multidisciplinary team approach for large-scale, sustainable improvements. However, there is an important role for individual physicians in reducing readmissions and ensuring appropriate length-of-stay.

Table 1: Change Ideas to Improve Care Transitions
Change Idea Key Action(s)
  1. Conduct individualized care and discharge planning

Upon Admission to Hospital

Upon Transition Out of Hospital

  • Schedule face-to-face and real time conversations (“warm handoffs”) with the patient and their family or informal caregivers
  • Provide a written individualized transition plan to the patient and their caregiver(s)
  • Provide written individualized care plans to their primary care team, specialists, and other providers within 48 hours of discharge
    Resource: Quality Standard: Transitions Between Hospital and Home, Statement #5
  1. Assess post-transition risk of readmission and arrange appropriate discharge follow-up

Upon Admission to Hospital/During Hospital Stay

Upon Transition Out of Hospital

  1. Reconcile medications at key transition points

Upon Admission to Hospital

  • Create a Best Possible Medication History (BPMH) and reconcile medications
  • Use the BPMH to create and/or compare to admission orders
  • Identify and resolve discrepancies with the team

During Hospital Stay

Upon Transition Out of Hospital

  • Provide the post-discharge medication list and instructions to the person and their caregivers, and explain the documents using non-medical language
  • Consider checklists or non-written cues (e.g., pictures) to help the patient take their medications as prescribed
    Resource: Quality Standard: Transitions Between Hospital and Home, Statements #3 and #4
  1. Strengthen health literacy—help the person develop the knowledge and skills to independently manage their care

Upon Admission to Hospital/During Hospital Stay

  • Assess and document whether the patient possesses the knowledge and skills necessary to manage their prevention and treatment regimes
  • Include the person’s level of health literacy in the care and discharge plan(s)
    Resource: Quality Standard: Transitions Between Hospital and Home, Statement #4

Upon Transition Out of Hospital

  • Provide information both verbally and in written form
  • Confirm and document the patient’s (and caregiver’s) comprehension of the discharge plan and how to manage at home
    Resources: Health Literacy Resources
  1. Consider impact of adverse events or patient safety issues

Upon Admission/During Hospital Stay/Transition Out of Hospital

  • Consider the severity of medical errors and adverse events, which can occur at any point during a hospital admission/stay
  • Examples of medical errors:
    • Incorrect or delayed treatment
    • Incorrect or incomplete diagnosis
    • Incorrect, delayed, omitted, or inappropriate diagnostic imaging or blood tests
    • Treating incorrect patient
    • Preventable adverse drug reactions
    • Falls, health care—related infections
      Resource:

Reflective Questions

As you review Table 1, consider the following reflective questions and suggested actions:

  1. Consider using this self-reflection guide to walk you through the steps of understanding and interpreting your data, identifying opportunities for practice change and getting the most out of your report.

  2. After reviewing the change ideas, which elements are contributing to prolonged LOS at your facility? Which elements are contributing to 7-day or 30-day readmission rates in your patients?

  3. After reviewing and reflecting on your practice data, can you identify the underlying root cause(s) for prolonged LOS and unanticipated/preventable readmissions in your practice? For 7-day readmissions, were your patients ready for discharge? If not, why not? For 30-day readmissions, were your patients properly prepared to manage their care at home? How was patient risk of readmission to hospital anticipated and managed? Look for themes.

  4. What is the relationship between shorter LOS and 7-day readmission rates for your patients? Are there clinical conditions or discharge patterns (e.g., day of week) that have higher readmission rates?

  5. When conducting a root cause analysis, ask yourself the following questions:

    a. What variations in practice can I identify (e.g., day of discharge)? What is causing the variations in practice?

    b. What practices or processes (or lack thereof) are increasing LOS?

    c. Why are my patients being readmitted within 7 days of discharge? Within 30-days of discharge? How is the quality of the transition contributing to need for readmission?

    d. What am I doing well and how can I do this more often?

  6. Use creative thinking techniques to identify problems and areas of focus for QI (see Try This! for an example).

Try This!

Use the Theory of Inventive Reasoning (TRIZ):

Use contradiction to identify opportunities for improvement by asking yourself the following questions:

Design a Bad Transition

  • What does an ineffective transition look like?
  • How would we design a “bad transition” (at admission and discharge)?
  • How would we prolong a LOS by design?
  • How would we increase the chances of someone needing readmission to hospital?
  • How would we make it difficult for patients to understand how to manage post discharge?

Review Your Answers

  • How do these ineffective design elements impact LOS or readmission?
  • Which of these ineffective design elements are part of our current process(es)?
  • What are the underlying causes of these ineffective design elements?
  • Which underlying causes will we prioritize for improvement?



Column

Advanced Diagnostic Imaging

Column

Column

Advanced Diagnostic Imaging

This indicator measures the number of diagnostic imaging tests (computed tomography [CT] scans, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and ultrasounds) performed during an inpatient admission to hospital. While imaging is necessary for diagnosing and guiding treatment, it is estimated that 20% to 50% of radiologic investigations are inappropriate.1 Determining the appropriateness of advanced imaging is complex and depends on patient characteristics, the medical condition, and symptoms being investigated.

The rapid evolution of imaging technology, long wait times for more appropriate tests, and a lack of communication between specialty clinicians, radiologists, and family physicians all exacerbate the issue.2 Conducting diagnostic imaging tests that are unlikely to alter clinical care or patient outcomes, as well as repetitive testing and “treatment cascades,” underpin inappropriate use of advanced diagnostic imaging procedures.2

Some studies have reported that newer, less experienced physicians tend to order more advanced imaging tests than more experienced physicians, as do physicians trained in health centres with more frequent use of diagnostic imaging.3

Table 1: Change Ideas to Reduce Inappropriate Ordering of Advanced Imaging Procedures
Change Idea Key Action(s)
  1. Implement standardized requisitions, checklists, and processes for identifying inappropriate CT, MRI, and ultrasound requests
  • Collaborate with radiology (e.g., radiologists, technologists, and sonographers) to develop and implement standardized advanced imaging requisitions (with appropriateness checklists for clinical conditions)
  • Develop checklists that: (1) enable physicians to determine if the imaging procedure is necessary and identify clinical conditions that may not benefit from the test, and (2) enable physicians to educate and counsel patients
  • Strengthen communication between ordering physicians and radiologists, both at the time of test ordering and result reporting
  1. Leverage clinical decision support
  • Embed real-time guidance and algorithms for diagnostic imaging into ehealth solutions, developing web-based systems of ordering CT, MRI, and ultrasound that incorporate current practice guidelines
  • Track ordering patterns in real time and provide regular feedback to clinicians
  1. Adhere to best practice recommendations to ensure appropriate use of advanced imaging
  • Follow guidelines from Choosing Wisely Canada,4 which includes the following statements:
    • Don’t routinely obtain neuro-imaging studies (CT, MRI, or carotid dopplers) in the evaluation of simple syncope in patients with a normal neurological examination
    • Don’t routinely perform preoperative testing (such as chest X-rays, echocardiograms, or cardiac stress tests) for patients undergoing low risk surgeries
  • Implement initiatives to reduce variation in decisions made regarding the selection of specific diagnostic imaging tests may impact ordering practices. See Canadian Association of Radiologist referral guidelines.
  • Develop materials to educate providers and patients about the pros and cons of diagnostic imaging

Reflective Questions

As you review Table 1, consider the following reflective questions and suggested actions:

  1. Consider using this self-reflection guide to walk you through the steps of understanding and interpreting your data, identifying opportunities for practice change and getting the most out of your report.

  2. If your data suggests overuse of advanced diagnostic imaging procedures:

    a. Reach out to other clinicians who are involved in ordering tests for inpatients to understand how their practice behaviours may differ from yours.

    b. Collaborate to identify quality issues and underlying root causes, as well as test and implement change initiatives.

    c. Collaborate with your radiology colleagues to develop/understand appropriate diagnostic testing for your clinical questions.

  3. How many CT scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds have been performed in your practice over the past 12 months? For which patient conditions are most advanced imaging tests ordered?

  4. Are there areas where general medicine teams and radiology teams agree there is inappropriate use? Are there areas where they disagree? What priorities can be set jointly?

  5. When conducting a root cause analysis, ask yourself the following questions:

    a. What practices or processes are contributing to these quality issues?

    b. What am I doing well and how can I do this more often?

    c. After reviewing your practice data, conducting chart reviews, and other activities, what is contributing to the inappropriate ordering of CT scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds?

  6. Which change ideas are the most relevant to your practice? Which are the most feasible to implement?


1 Kjelle E, Andersen ER, Soril, LJJ, van Bodegom-Vos L, Hofman BM. Interventions to reduce low-value imaging—a systematic review of interventions and outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(983).
2 CADTH, Canada’s Drug and Health Technology Agency. Appropriate utilization of advanced diagnostic imaging procedures: CT, MRI, and PET/CT (environmental scan) [Internet]. Ottawa (ON); The Agency. 2013 Feb [cited 2022 Jan 4]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/PFDIESLiteratureScan_e_es.pdf
3 Sistrom C, McKay NL, Weilbury JB, Atlas JS, Ferris T. Determinants of diagnostic imaging utilization in primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2012;18(4):135-44. Available from: https://ajmc.s3.amazonaws.com/_media/_pdf/AJMC_12aprSistrom_e135to144.pdf
4 Canadian Society of Internal Medicine. Internal medicine: eleven tests and treatments to question [Internet]. Toronto (ON); Choosing Wisely Canada. 2021 Jul [cited 2022 Apr 1]. Available from: https://choosingwiselycanada.org/internal-medicine/



Column

Routine Bloodwork

Column

Column

Routine Bloodwork

This indicator measures the number of routine blood tests (electrolytes and complete blood count [CBC]) conducted during an inpatient stay. Routine, repetitive blood work on clinically stable patients is unnecessary and may disturb sleep, reduce patient satisfaction, cause or worsen anemia, and increase the risk for adverse outcomes.1,2 It is estimated that laboratory testing influences 60% to 70% of medical decisions, which can lead to additional downstream testing and procedures.1

Studies revealed that bundled order sets, a fear of “missing something,” and physician habit contribute to inappropriate ordering of blood work and other diagnostics.1 Choosing Wisely Canada, which hosts of an initiative focused on reducing unnecessary treatment and tests, prepared Pause the Draws, a toolkit to help identify fundamental signals of overtesting.2

Table 1: Change Ideas to Reduce the Frequency of Routine Bloodwork
Change Idea Key Action(s)
  1. Understand the extent of the problem2
  • Collaborate with clinicians and laboratory partners to identify the scope of the issue and potential underlying quality issues, including:
    • Total number of routine tests performed per inpatient day
    • Total volume of blood processed for routine tests per inpatient-day
    • Proportion of inpatients with routine bloodwork ordered for >3 consecutive days
    • Proportion of all CBCs that are ordered after 3 consecutive normal and/or stable values
  • Understand which interventions may best suit your general medicine team and hospital
  1. Educate staff
  • Develop education initiatives about the harms of repetitive blood draws and of the amount of repetitive testing occurring at your hospital (targeting clinicians, including physicians, residents, nurse practitioners, and nurses)3
  1. Modify Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE)
  • Change the CPOE to support a restrictive ordering strategy
    • Remove “daily lab” option or replace “daily x 3” with a “daily x 1” option
  • Separate “bundled” tests (tests that have been bundled for convenience, but have different clinical indications; e.g., INR-PTT [international normalized ratio/prothrombin time])
  • Embed education and guidance (decision support) into order sets where possible

Reflective Questions

As you review Table 1, consider the following reflective questions and suggested actions:

  1. Consider using this self-reflection guide to walk you through the steps of understanding and interpreting your data, identifying opportunities for practice change and getting the most out of your report.

  2. Understand your ordering practices to help identify the signals of over testing2:

    a. Do you believe that it would be possible to decrease the number of blood tests being ordered per patient without negatively impacting patient care?

    b. Do you ever order blood tests habitually rather than to answer a specific clinical question (even occasionally)?

    c. On admission, are blood tests typically ordered for a defined duration (e.g., CBC daily x 2 days) or are they open-ended standing orders?

    d. How common is it for you to order blood work for durations longer than 3 days? How about 5 days? Are they ever ordered without a clear stop date?

    e. Are there any work-arounds used by you or your colleagues to make ordering lab work easier?

  3. Which change ideas are relevant to your practice? Which are feasible to address?

  4. After reviewing your practice report data, conducting chart reviews, and other self-reflection activities, can you identify the factors contributing to any inappropriate ordering of bloodwork?

  5. When conducting a root cause analysis, ask yourself the following questions:

    a. What practices or processes are contributing to these quality issues?

    b. What am I doing well and how can I do this more often?


1 Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C, Pahwa AK, Petrilli C, Ziemba JB, et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1833-9.
2 Choosing Wisely Canada. Pause the draws: a toolkit on reducing repetitive, “routine” blood draws in hospitals [Internet]. Toronto (ON): Choosing Wisely; 2019 [cited 2022 Jan 4]. Available from: https://choosingwiselycanada.org/download/1385
3 MacDonald EG, Saleh RR, Lee TC. Mindfulness-based laboratory reduction: reducing utilization through trainee-led daily “time outs.” Am J Med. 2017;130(6):e241-e244.



Column

Appropriate Blood Transfusions

Column

Column

Appropriate Blood Transfusion

(Minimizing Inappropriate Blood Transfusions)

Based on the Choosing Wisely recommendation, the appropriate blood transfusion indicator is the percentage of transfusions with pre-transfusion hemoglobin levels <80 g/L. Randomized control trials have demonstrated that for most patients, transfusions can be safely restricted to even lower thresholds of hemoglobin (<70 g/L), but the higher threshold of <80 g/L was chosen to allow individual clinical judgement around cases where levels may need to be higher due to conditions such as cardiac ischemia.1 Evidence shows that using a threshold for blood transfusions based on hemoglobin alone can still lead to inappropriate transfusions.2 Adverse events, such as infections, transfusion reactions, and increased morbidity and mortality in people receiving blood transfusions is well documented, as is the need to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions.3

For general medicine, opportunities for improvement are informed by understanding the extent to which modifiable risk factors drive transfusion decisions. Identifying and understanding the root cause(s) of the inappropriate blood transfusions is essential for informing quality improvement initiatives and improving patient care and outcomes. This indicator measures appropriate blood transfusions. For improvement, the following best practices align with decreasing the percentage of inappropriate transfusions1:

See Table 1 for change ideas that can help optimize appropriate blood transfusions.

Table 1: Change Ideas to Optimize Appropriate Blood Transfusions
Change Idea Key Action(s)
  1. Adopt a restrictive blood transfusion practice/policy
  • Avoid transfusions of red blood cells for hemoglobin (<80 g/L) or hematocrit thresholds in the absence of symptoms of active coronary disease, heart failure, stroke, massive hemorrhage, or trauma

Resources:

  1. Apply best practice guidelines for transfusion1
  • Implement an evidence-based approach to the ordering of blood components using a restrictive transfusion strategy
  • Refrain from ordering red blood cells based on hemoglobin values alone
  • Consider red blood cell transfusion only when defined physiological indicators (including signs and symptoms) are not correctable by other modalities
    • Re-evaluate the patient and measure hemoglobin between EACH unit of blood
    • Monitor the change in hemoglobin AND the absolute hemoglobin level
  • Recommended national benchmarks
    • At least 65% of red blood cell transfusion episodes are single unit
    • At least 80% of inpatient red blood cell transfusions have a pre-transfusion Hb ???80 g/L

Resources:

  1. Implement one or more of these key actions to create a successful blood management program4
  • Establish and adhere to evidence-based transfusion guidelines
  • Create clinical decision supports (e.g., evidence-based prompts during order entry, clinical service champions to reinforce behaviours and provide feedback)
  • Use GeMQIN practice reports to establish feedback mechanisms, provide peer-to-peer feedback, and track data over time
  • Implement patient-focused strategies to minimize blood loss (e.g., antifibrinolytic medications, small volume blood draws, point of care testing)

Resources:

Reflective Questions

As you review Table 1, consider the following reflective questions and suggested actions:

  1. Consider using this self-reflection guide to walk you through the steps of understanding and interpreting your data, identifying opportunities for practice change and getting the most out of your report.

  2. After reviewing the change ideas, which elements are contributing to inappropriate blood transfusions in your practice?

  3. Do you have a plan to review your practice report data, conduct audits, and engage in other self-reflection activities to identify/verify/correct underlying reasons for inappropriate blood transfusion?

  4. When conducting a root cause analysis, ask yourself the following questions:

    a. What is causing variation in my practice?

    b. What practices or processes (or lack thereof) are encouraging or enabling unnecessary blood transfusions?

    c. What is working well and how can I do this more often?

  5. Which colleagues in other teams or divisions can I collaborate with (e.g., laboratory medicine, hematology)?


1 Villanueva C, Colomo A, Bosch A, Corcepcion M, Hernandez-Gea V, Aracil C, et al. Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. NEJM. 2013;368(1):11-21.
2 Society for the Advancement of Blood Management, Inc. Transfusion overuse: exposing an international problem and patient safety issue [Internet]. New Jersey: The Society. 2018 Aug [cited 2021 Nov]. Available from: https://www.sabm.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Transfusion-Overuse.pdf
3 Mehta N, Murphy MF, Kaplan L, Levinson W. Reducing unnecessary red blood cell transfusion in hospitalized patients. BMJ. 2021;373:n830.
4 Guttendorf J. Implementing restrictive transfusion strategies to improve patient outcomes [Internet]. North Carolina: Critical Care Alert, Relias Media. 2018 Mar 1 [cited 2021 Nov]. Available from: https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/142226-implementing-restrictive-transfusion-strategies-to-improve-patient-outcomes



Column

About MyPractice Reports

About MyPractice Reports



This report provides:

  • An overview of patient characteristics
  • Aggregate data on 6 key quality indicators:
  • Comparator data of peer performance in your division
  • Performance indicators for common diagnoses
  • Evidence-based change ideas supported through Choosing Wisely, Ontario Health, and practice guidelines
  • Resources you can access to develop quality improvement plans within your division
  • Provide reliable information based on clinical and administrative data extracted from electronic hospital records and databases within your hospital

This report DOES NOT provide:

  • Details about specific patients
  • Specific instructions for clinical care
  • Clinical judgement

Data Sources

Administrative and clinical data extracted from your hospital’s electronic medical records systems were used to generate this report. Administrative databases that were used include: the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) database; the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD); and the Admission Discharge Transfer System (ADT).

How to Best View your Report

This report was optimized for 1080p screens on modern browsers such as Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Mozilla Firefox in full screen mode. The report will read well on higher resolutions and will default to a mobile “scrollable” layout for resolutions less than 768p. For resolutions between 768p and 1080p, the report may be uncomfortable to read. Experimenting with the “zoom” feature on the browser may improve readability.

Additional Information

For more information about MyPractice: General Medicine Reports, please email us at GeMQIN@ontariohealth.ca.

How to Read MyPractice Reports

How to Read MyPractice Reports



MyPractice Reports are designed to foster quality improvement efforts and promote optimal care in general medicine. Your confidential MyPractice Report presents data on your clinical practice patterns relative to anonymized peers within your division. The data featured in the report are specific to your practice to help you better understand your patients and how you can support them. In reviewing the data, you are encouraged to reflect on how you practice and think about practice change ideas from both an individual and team perspective. You are also encouraged to discuss these ideas with your peers, your GeMQIN physician champion, and/or your division head.

Note: Reviewing and reflecting on your practice feedback as part of this report can be claimed for credit as a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activity under Section 3: Practice Assessment of MAINPORT ePortfolio of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

Review the following descriptions for each section tab along the top banner of the MyPractice Report:

  • Overview - A summary of your practice for each indicator, designed to act as a dashboard for easy navigation through the report. You can always go back to this tab to find any information you need.
  • My Patients - Demographic information about your patients and their discharge diagnoses.
  • Indicators - Includes a drop-down list of six quality indicators, each of which can be selected to view detailed information about your clinical practices for that indicator. You can navigate between the indicators using the dropdown list or by using the arrows found on the sides of each page.
  • Quality Improvement - Includes change ideas and suggested key actions relevant to the quality indicators in the report. These resources are meant to support your quality improvement interventions.
  • Help - Information and resources to help guide and interpret your report. It includes background information about the MyPractice Reports, guidance on how to read your report, and frequently asked questions (FAQs).

Guidance About Interpreting Your Data

The MyPractice Reports are designed to encourage reflection by giving us an opportunity to see patterns in our practice and to decide if these are the result of deliberate choices (e.g., a physician may know they order more imaging tests because they deliberately choose to do tests in hospital rather than defer to outpatient follow-up) or if these are unintentional, and consider whether there are aspects of our practice we want to change.

  • Because we are comparing ourselves with our colleagues, rather than against specific targets, there will always be bottom and top performers at every hospital. Indeed, most of us will be in the bottom on some indicators. This is not the same as providing poor quality care. It is very likely that most of us are providing high quality care, even if we are on the bottom end of the comparison with our colleagues.
  • Check the sample size for data points. You can see the number if you hover over your point on the graphs. Often, those who are at the extremes (very high or very low performance) have smaller sample sizes. Don’t overreact to small differences. For example, if a physician had 5 of 44 patients readmitted, that would put them at the worse end of their hospital’s distribution. If just 1 of those patients had not been readmitted, they would have been in the middle of the distribution. Further, if 2 of those patients were not readmitted, then the physician would have had the very lowest readmission rates.
  • Look for the trends over time, which are reported on each indicator page. Often these are more informative. If your data are more stable over time, then trust those signals more than ones that bounce around.
  • Ask if there are factors about your practice that might make your patients/indicators different, compared to your colleagues.

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions



  • The My Patients table now includes 3 additional patient-level variables. These variables are No Health Card Number, No Postal Code, and Discharged to Long-Term Care. These are presented as percentages in the My Patients table.
  • The My Patients table now includes 2 additional neighborhood-level variables. These variables are Percentage Visible Minority and After Tax Income. Neighborhood-level variables are from Statistics Canada’s 2016 census, linked to hospitalizations at the level of dissemination area. Each patient is assigned a value based on their dissemination area, and median (25th - 75th) are presented in the My Patients table.
  • The Advanced Imaging indicator now considers two imaging measurements from the same imaging order as a single imaging test. This is a small update to correct for duplicate measurements, which only affects a minority of hospitals.
  • The 7-Day Readmission and 30-Day Readmission indicator definitions have been updated to further align with CIHI’s definition. See FAQ section Why did the readmission rate from my previous report change? for more details.

This report was optimized for 1080p screens on modern browsers such as Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Mozilla Firefox in full screen mode. The report will read well on higher resolutions and will default to a mobile “scrollable” layout for resolutions less than 768p. For resolutions between 768p and 1080p, the report may be uncomfortable to read. In this situation, experimenting with the “zoom” feature on your browser may improve readability.

Patients who meet the following criteria are included:

  • Discharged between February 28, 2019 to February 29, 2020 (inclusive)
  • Total length of stay was less than or equal to 14 days. Patients with long length of stay are excluded because it may not be reasonable to attribute their care to a single physician for typical practice patterns
  • Admitted to or discharged from general medicine or hospitalist service

General medicine involves frequent handovers of patients between physicians, making it challenging to attribute patient care to a single physician. To enable fair reporting of practice and outcomes for individual physicians, patients were attributed to a single physician as follows:

  • Hospitalizations are attributed to a physician when that physician is coded as the most responsible physician.
  • Physicians are included in the report if they have >50 unique hospitalizations during the reporting period.
  • The data for this report were collected by GEMINI. GEMINI is one of Canada’s largest hospital patient data repositories for research. Established in 2015 as a hospital research collaborative based out of Unity Health Toronto with seven hospitals, GEMINI currently holds data on >1.8 million admissions from over 30 Ontario hospitals. GEMINI collects data for all medical (including general medicine, cardiology, oncology, etc.) and intensive care hospitalizations, covering >60% of all inpatients across the province.

    GEMINI contains administrative and clinical data extracted from hospital information systems and administrative databases. Administrative data include variables standardized for reporting to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (e.g., patient demographics, admission and discharge dates, diagnosis codes). Clinical data include rich and granular variables from the patient’s electronic health record (e.g. patient vital signs, laboratory test results, medication orders). GEMINI receives hospital data every 3 months and has established analytical processes to handle the large volume and broad range of data.

    GEMINI data are collected through research ethics board-approved protocols and are governed by the GEMINI data governance policies.

    The GEMINI team has undertaken extensive efforts to validate the data that were collected. These include checking data quality by testing for missing data, consistency over time, and implausible values. We have developed workflows for preparing research-ready data that include deidentification, quality control, standardization and validation. Our methodology for assessing data quality has been rigorously validated (98%-100% accuracy), as described in this article. In addition, a data validator at each hospital manually compared the extracted data from GEMINI with the data in the hospital’s electronic health records.

    Below is a list of the hospitals participating in GeMQIN to date.

    • Brampton Civic Hospital - William Osler Health System
    • Cortelluci Vaughan Hospital - Mackenzie Health
    • Credit Valley Hospital - Trillium Health Partners
    • Etobicoke General Hospital - William Osler Health System
    • Grand River Hospital
    • Greater Niagara General Site - Niagara Health
    • Hamilton General Hospital - Hamilton Health Sciences
    • Humber River Hospital
    • Juravinski Hospital - Hamilton Health Sciences
    • Kingston General Hospital - Kingston Health Sciences Centre
    • Mackenzie Richmond Hill Hospital - Mackenzie Health
    • Markham Stouffville Hospital - Oak Valley Health
    • Michael Garron Hospital - Toronto East Health Network
    • Mississauga Hospital - Trillium Health Partners
    • Mount Sinai Hospital - Sinai Health System
    • North York General Hospital
    • Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital - Halton Healthcare Services
    • Sault Area Hospital - Sault Area Hospital
    • St. Catharines Site - Niagara Health
    • St. Joseph's Health Centre - Unity Health Toronto
    • St. Mary's General Hospital
    • St. Michael's Hospital - Unity Health Toronto
    • Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
    • Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
    • Toronto General Hospital - University Health Network
    • Toronto Western Hospital - University Health Network
    • University Hospital - London Health Science Centre
    • Victoria Hospital - London Health Science Centre
    • Welland Hospital Site - Niagara Health

    The indicators in this report were selected by the GeMQIN Report Development Committee, which includes the program’s provincial clinical leads, physicians and interdisciplinary health professionals, hospital administrators, quality improvement experts, and researchers. Part of GeMQIN’s ongoing work over the coming years will be to further develop quality indicators that are relevant to hospital medicine, and we welcome feedback and participation in that process. If you have any feedback about these reports, please contact us at GeMQIN@ontariohealth.ca.

    Definitions can be found on the bottom-left of each indicator tab by expanding the Definition and Indicator details headings. Table 1 below provides a summary of definitions. Please see the MyPractice Background and Indicator Details document for additional information.

    Table 1: Definitions and Calculations for MyPractice Report Indicators \(^{a}\)
    Indicator Encounter-level Definition Physician-Level Calculation
    Length of Stay Number of days from admission to discharge Median length of stay
    7-Day Readmission Readmission to any medicine or ICU service at a GeMQIN hospital within 7 days of discharge Percentage of episodes of care that were followed by a 7-day readmission
    30-Day Readmission Readmission to any medicine or ICU service at a GeMQIN hospital within 30 days of discharge Percentage of episodes of care that were followed by a 30-day readmission
    Advanced Imaging Total number of CT, MRI, and ultrasound tests from admission to discharge Mean number of tests
    Routine Bloodwork Total number of CBC and electrolyte tests from admission to discharge Mean number of tests
    Appropriate RBC Transfusion RBC transfusion with a most recent hemoglobin value <80 g/L within 48 hours prior Percentage of RBC Transfusions that were appropriate
    a Abbreviations: CBC, complete blood count; CT, computerized tomography; GeMQIN, General Medicine Quality Improvement Network; ICU, intensive care unit; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; RBC, red blood cell

    The 30-day timeframe to measure readmission is what is most commonly used to report hospital readmissions. However, recent research (Graham et al, 2018) suggests that earlier readmissions (e.g., within 7 days) are more likely to be preventable and amenable to hospital-based interventions, while later readmissions (e.g., within 30 days) are more likely to be preventable and improved upon by home and community-based interventions.

    Readmission indicators exclude episodes of care with at least one record for mental health as the most responsible discharge diagnoses, and do not consider readmissions for mental health as readmissions. This is to align with CIHI’s reporting, and because we do not comprehensively capture all mental health hospitalizations. Mental health hospitalizations may go to non-medical services, and if included, may bias the reported data.

    There are several reasons why data may not be shown in the report, including the absence of data, identified data quality issues, or the suppression of data. Data on fewer than 6 admissions are suppressed to reduce the privacy risk that could lead to re-identification of individuals and residual disclosure of information.

    For each hospitalization, the most responsible inpatient discharge diagnosis is coded using ICD-10 codes in hospital administrative data. We use the Clinical Classifications Software Refined (CCSR) to group ICD-10 codes into clinically meaningful diagnosis groups. This approach allows us to aggregate >70,000 unique ICD-10 diagnosis codes into 540 mutually exclusive categories across 22 body systems. When a proxy most responsible discharge diagnosis is present, that code is used in place of the most responsible discharge diagnosis.

    These data are intended to be used to help front-line healthcare providers understand the quality of general medicine care and inform quality improvement efforts. There are sometimes large differences in practice and outcomes between physicians within a hospital. In general, these differences are not explained by differences in case-mix or patient characteristics between physicians, because general medicine physicians take care of whichever patients are admitted when they are on service, resulting in a “quasi-randomization” of patients. However, there may be subtle differences in practice patterns, which require knowledge of local context to interpret (e.g., some physicians work for 4-week blocks and others work for 2-week blocks; or some physicians attend more on hospitalist vs. clinical teaching unit teams). Thus, we encourage these data to be interpreted by physicians and care teams with local context in mind.

    The summary statistics in this report are based on multiple years. There have been changes to clinical practice patterns over time (for example, use of routine bloodwork has generally reduced in more recent years). Clinicians who only practiced in more recent time periods may appear different from their colleagues. Please consider this when interpreting your own data.

    Calculations in this report include the time that a general medicine patient spends in CTU/ICU.

    Physicians will only see indicators from their previous report if they had received a Version 3 report from the same site. The indicators from the Version 3 reports have been recalculated and updated using updated methodology and the most recent data available. There may be small variations between values in this report and the previous report.

    Your 7-day and 30-day readmission rates in last year’s report may be slightly different than the My Previous Report values on the Overview page. This is because we have updated our definition of readmission to further align with CIHI’s definition. These updates are as follows:

    • Now episodes of care with the last record as self sign-out are excluded from the denominator.
    • Now episodes of care where any encounter (including transfers) involves mental heath, palliative care, or chemotherapy are excluded from the numerator. Elective admissions are excluded from the numerator only if the initial encounter in the readmission is coded as elective.
    • Now episodes of care that involve obstetric delivery are excluded from the numerator.

    These updates result in slightly lower readmission rates for all physicians compared to previous reports. Please see the MyPractice Background and Indicator Details document for additional information.

    GEMINI data are used to create the MyPractice: General Medicine Report, which is available to physicians who practice in participating GeMQIN hospitals. Through continuously evolving quality improvement tools, resources, and activities, GeMQIN supports participating general medicine physicians across Ontario to:

    • Use their data to identify opportunities for quality improvement
    • Get ideas and strategies to improve care
    • Be quality improvement leaders in their hospitals
    • Be connected with other general internal medicine physicians and hospital teams

    The Charlson comorbidity index score was used to assess comorbidity at admission. This score is based on administrative diagnosis codes and is one of the most common comorbidity scores used in health services research. We used an updated version of the original score (Quan et al., 2011).