John R Romanelli1, Pascal R Fuchshuber2, Jonah James Stulberg3, Rebecca Brewer Kowalski4, Prashant Sinha5, Thomas A Aloia6, Rocco Orlando7. 1. Department of Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, S3656, Springfield, MA, 01085, USA. john.romanelli@baystatehealth.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente, Walnut Creek, CA, USA. 3. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 5. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Hartford Healthcare, Hartford, CT, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare consumers seeking accurate information about where to find quality surgical care face a confusing constellation of rating systems that lack transparency or consistency of opinion. For example, a 2016 report in Health Affairs demonstrated that no hospital was rated as a high performer by all four prominent national ratings systems: Consumer Reports, Leapfrog, Healthgrades and U.S. News & World Report (Austin et al. Health Aff 34:423-430, 2015). Surgeons should have an understanding of the current state of public reporting of quality; hospital ratings and data sources; physician ratings and data sources; and transparency of reporting. METHODS: We conducted a non-systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Hospital quality ratings remain nebulous and there is not universal opinion on the utility of voluntary participation in ranking systems, leaving the current systems largely opinion-based. Early attempts at physician ranking systems are rudimentary at best and suffer from methodological concerns. Publicly reported metrics should be easily understandable, accessible, clinically relevant, reliable, non-punitive, and shielded from legal discovery. Transparency is increasing within institutions to help align staff to institutional objectives, while specialty specific registries are helping to standardize care pathways and outcomes measures across organizations. Measuring surgical outcomes beyond 30-day morbidity and mortality has been plagued by a lack of understanding on how to create metrics that matter; the four attributes of relevance, scientific soundness, feasibility and comprehensiveness set a high bar for the development of effective and efficient quality measures in surgery. DISCUSSION: SAGES, via the Quality, Outcomes, and Safety Committee, is committed to learning how to develop meaningful quality metrics in general surgery and will continue to work in other areas that impact quality, such as opioid prescribing, and surgeon wellness.
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare consumers seeking accurate information about where to find quality surgical care face a confusing constellation of rating systems that lack transparency or consistency of opinion. For example, a 2016 report in Health Affairs demonstrated that no hospital was rated as a high performer by all four prominent national ratings systems: Consumer Reports, Leapfrog, Healthgrades and U.S. News & World Report (Austin et al. Health Aff 34:423-430, 2015). Surgeons should have an understanding of the current state of public reporting of quality; hospital ratings and data sources; physician ratings and data sources; and transparency of reporting. METHODS: We conducted a non-systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Hospital quality ratings remain nebulous and there is not universal opinion on the utility of voluntary participation in ranking systems, leaving the current systems largely opinion-based. Early attempts at physician ranking systems are rudimentary at best and suffer from methodological concerns. Publicly reported metrics should be easily understandable, accessible, clinically relevant, reliable, non-punitive, and shielded from legal discovery. Transparency is increasing within institutions to help align staff to institutional objectives, while specialty specific registries are helping to standardize care pathways and outcomes measures across organizations. Measuring surgical outcomes beyond 30-day morbidity and mortality has been plagued by a lack of understanding on how to create metrics that matter; the four attributes of relevance, scientific soundness, feasibility and comprehensiveness set a high bar for the development of effective and efficient quality measures in surgery. DISCUSSION: SAGES, via the Quality, Outcomes, and Safety Committee, is committed to learning how to develop meaningful quality metrics in general surgery and will continue to work in other areas that impact quality, such as opioid prescribing, and surgeon wellness.
Authors: Chad M Brummett; Jennifer F Waljee; Jenna Goesling; Stephanie Moser; Paul Lin; Michael J Englesbe; Amy S B Bohnert; Sachin Kheterpal; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Charles E Edmiston; Maureen Spencer; Brian D Lewis; Kellie R Brown; Peter J Rossi; Cindy R Henen; Heidi W Smith; Gary R Seabrook Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 2.150
Authors: Bernd Rechel; Martin McKee; Marion Haas; Gregory P Marchildon; Frederic Bousquet; Miriam Blümel; Alexander Geissler; Ewout van Ginneken; Toni Ashton; Ingrid Sperre Saunes; Anders Anell; Wilm Quentin; Richard Saltman; Steven Culler; Andrew Barnes; Willy Palm; Ellen Nolte Journal: Health Policy Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Kristen A Ban; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Y Ko; Mark W Friedberg; Jonah J Stulberg; Lynn Zhou; Bruce L Hall; David B Hoyt; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ryan W Day; Charles S Cleeland; Xin S Wang; Sharon Fielder; John Calhoun; Claudius Conrad; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Vijaya Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Eva van der Meij; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Baukje van den Heuvel; Boudewijn J Dwars; W J H Jeroen Meijerink; H Jaap Bonjer; Judith A F Huirne; Johannes R Anema Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 2.102