Most developers put their measures through a rigorous process long before NQF considers them for endorsement. NQF’s careful review and assessment gathers input from stakeholders across the healthcare enterprise and develops consensus among those stakeholders about which measures warrant endorsement as the “best in class.”
According to Tim Ferris, co-chair of NQF’s Consensus Standards Approval Committee, “Measures are the only way we can really know if care is safe, efficient, effective, and patient-centered. Performance measures also help us improve faster. We can make corrections earlier in providing care.”
NQF uses four criteria to assess a measure for endorsement:
Important to measure and report to keep our focus on priority areas, where the evidence is highest that measurement can have a positive impact on healthcare quality.
Scientifically acceptable, so that the measure when implemented will produce consistent (reliable) and credible (valid) results about the quality of care.
Useable and relevant to ensure that intended users — consumers, purchasers, providers, and policy makers — can understand the results of the measure and are likely to find them useful for quality improvement and decisionmaking.
Feasible to collect with data that can be readily available for measurement and retrievable without undue burden.
"The reason this works really well is because you get input from everyone involved in healthcare — those who receive, give, and pay for care. That allows everyone to have a voice about whether the measure is important to measure, is valid, and is feasible. I make sure our top clinical experts on an issue contribute to the NQF process." Lee A. Fleischer, MD , University of Pennsylvania Healthcare System, Co-chair, Outcomes Steering Committee
Learn how endorsement happens.