Literature DB >> 25639485

An audit and feedback system for effective quality improvement in head and neck surgery: Can we become better surgeons?

Carol M Lewis1, Marcus M Monroe, Dianna B Roberts, Amy C Hessel, Stephen Y Lai, Randal S Weber.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An evaluation system was established for measuring physician performance. This study was designed to determine whether an initial evaluation with surgeon feedback improved subsequent performance.
METHODS: After an evaluation of an initial cohort of procedures (2004-2008), surgeons were given risk-adjusted individual feedback. Procedures in a postfeedback cohort (2009-2010) were then assessed. Both groups were further stratified into high-acuity procedure (HAP) and low-acuity procedure (LAP) groups. Negative performance measures included the length of the perioperative stay (2 days or longer for LAPs and 11 days or longer for HAPs); perioperative blood transfusions; a return to the operating room within 7 days; and readmission, surgical site infections, and mortality within 30 days.
RESULTS: There were 2618 procedures in the initial cohort and 1389 procedures in the postfeedback cohort. Factors affecting performance included the surgeon, the procedure's acuity, and patient comorbidities. There were no significant differences in the proportions of LAPs and HAPs or in the prevalence of patient comorbidities between the 2 assessment periods. The mean length of stay significantly decreased for LAPs from 2.1 to 1.5 days (P = .005) and for HAPs from 10.5 to 7 days (P = .003). The incidence of 1 or more negative performance indicators decreased significantly for LAPs from 39.1% to 28.6% (P < .001) and trended downward for HAPs from 60.9% to 53.5% (P = .081).
CONCLUSIONS: Periodic assessments of performance and outcomes are essential for continual quality improvement. Significant decreases in the length of stay and negative performance indicators were seen after feedback. Therefore, an audit and feedback system may be an effective means of improving quality of care and reducing practice variability within a surgical department.
© 2015 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  audit; feedback; head neck cancer; head neck surgery; performance improvement; quality improvement

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25639485      PMCID: PMC4777516          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29238

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  15 in total

1.  The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authors:  Shukri F Khuri; Jennifer Daley; William G Henderson
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2002-01

2.  Feedback data sources that inform physician self-assessment.

Authors:  Jocelyn Lockyer; Heather Armson; Benjamin Chesluk; Timothy Dornan; Eric Holmboe; Elaine Loney; Karen Mann; Joan Sargeant
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.650

3.  Cardiac surgeon report cards, referral for cardiac surgery, and the ethical responsibilities of cardiologists.

Authors:  David L Brown; Stephen Clarke; Justin Oakley
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Surgeons' performance data to be available from July.

Authors:  Krishna Chinthapalli
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-06-11

Review 5.  The use of financial incentives to help improve health outcomes: is the quality and outcomes framework fit for purpose? A systematic review.

Authors:  Carwyn Langdown; Stephen Peckham
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 2.341

6.  Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies.

Authors:  D A Davis; M A Thomson; A D Oxman; R B Haynes
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-09-06       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  New York State's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System: four years later.

Authors:  E L Hannan; D Kumar; M Racz; A L Siu; M R Chassin
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Quality and performance indicators in an academic department of head and neck surgery.

Authors:  Randal S Weber; Carol M Lewis; Scott D Eastman; Ehab Y Hanna; Olubumi Akiwumi; Amy C Hessel; Stephen Y Lai; Leslie Kian; Michael E Kupferman; Dianna B Roberts
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2010-12

Review 9.  Feedback as a strategy to change behaviour: the devil is in the details.

Authors:  Elaine L Larson; Sameer J Patel; David Evans; Lisa Saiman
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice.

Authors:  A D Oxman; M A Thomson; D A Davis; R B Haynes
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  9 in total

1.  Evaluation of Quality Metrics for Surgically Treated Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Evan M Graboyes; Melanie E Townsend; Dorina Kallogjeri; Jay F Piccirillo; Brian Nussenbaum
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 6.223

2.  Quality assurance in head and neck surgery: special considerations to catch up.

Authors:  Guy Andry; Marc Hamoir; C René Leemans
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Development and Feasibility of a Specialty-Specific National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP): The Head and Neck-Reconstructive Surgery NSQIP.

Authors:  Carol M Lewis; Thomas A Aloia; Weiming Shi; Ira Martin; Stephen Y Lai; Jesse C Selber; Amy C Hessel; Matthew M Hanasono; Katherine A Hutcheson; Geoffrey L Robb; Randal S Weber
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 6.223

Review 4.  Performance Improvement in Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Carol M Lewis; Randal S Weber
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 5.075

5.  Audit-and-Feedback and Workflow Changes Improve Emergency Department Care of Critically Ill Children.

Authors:  Sandra P Spencer; Todd Karsies
Journal:  Pediatr Qual Saf       Date:  2019-01-09

6.  Healthcare professionals' experiences of being observed regarding hygiene routines: the Hawthorne effect in vascular surgery.

Authors:  Francis Rezk; Margaretha Stenmarker; Stefan Acosta; Karoline Johansson; Malin Bengnér; Håkan Åstrand; Ann-Christine Andersson
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 3.090

7.  Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review.

Authors:  Lisanne Hut-Mossel; Kees Ahaus; Gera Welker; Rijk Gans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Behaviour modification interventions to optimise red blood cell transfusion practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lesley J J Soril; Thomas W Noseworthy; Laura E Dowsett; Katherine Memedovich; Hannah M Holitzki; Diane L Lorenzetti; Henry Thomas Stelfox; David A Zygun; Fiona M Clement
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  NSQIP as a Predictor of Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Free Flap Reconstruction.

Authors:  Charles A Riley; Blair M Barton; Claire M Lawlor; David Z Cai; Phoebe E Riley; Edward D McCoul; Christian P Hasney; Brian A Moore
Journal:  OTO Open       Date:  2017-01-18
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.