OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop evidence-based quality indicators to measure key aspects of care that can be targeted to decrease variations in complication rates between surgeons performing total joint replacement. DESIGN: RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) modified-Delphi expert panel method. To accomplish this objective, a proposed set of quality of care indicators was developed through a comprehensive literature search and structured interviews with expert clinicians. An expert panel of orthopaedic surgeons was then convened to rate the validity of these quality indicators using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Indicators were classified as valid by the panel based on the median panel rating and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings. RESULTS: There were 101 candidate indicators of quality identified in the six domains of preoperative processes of care, intraoperative processes, postoperative processes, implant selection and the use of new technology, privileging of hospitals and surgeons, and outcomes and comorbidity assessment. A total of 68 of the 101 indicators were rated as valid with statistical agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies measures of structure, process and outcome rated as valid quality indicators for hip and knee replacement. This project provides tools to measure and improve quality of care for patients undergoing total joint replacement.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop evidence-based quality indicators to measure key aspects of care that can be targeted to decrease variations in complication rates between surgeons performing total joint replacement. DESIGN: RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) modified-Delphi expert panel method. To accomplish this objective, a proposed set of quality of care indicators was developed through a comprehensive literature search and structured interviews with expert clinicians. An expert panel of orthopaedic surgeons was then convened to rate the validity of these quality indicators using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Indicators were classified as valid by the panel based on the median panel rating and the amount of dispersion of panel ratings. RESULTS: There were 101 candidate indicators of quality identified in the six domains of preoperative processes of care, intraoperative processes, postoperative processes, implant selection and the use of new technology, privileging of hospitals and surgeons, and outcomes and comorbidity assessment. A total of 68 of the 101 indicators were rated as valid with statistical agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies measures of structure, process and outcome rated as valid quality indicators for hip and knee replacement. This project provides tools to measure and improve quality of care for patients undergoing total joint replacement.
Authors: Karen C Nanji; Pamela M Garabedian; Sofia D Shaikh; Marin E Langlieb; Aziz Boxwala; William J Gordon; David W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Aricca D Van Citters; Cheryl Fahlman; Donald A Goldmann; Jay R Lieberman; Karl M Koenig; Anthony M DiGioia; Beth O'Donnell; John Martin; Frank A Federico; Richard A Bankowitz; Eugene C Nelson; Kevin J Bozic Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Karen C Nanji; Alan Forbes Merry; Sofia D Shaikh; Christina Pagel; Hao Deng; Joyce A Wahr; Adrian W Gelb; Beverley A Orser Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna M Anderson; Christine Comer; Toby O Smith; Benjamin T Drew; Hemant Pandit; Deborah Antcliff; Anthony C Redmond; Gretl A McHugh Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.362