Candidate Quality Measures for Hand Surgery

Hand Surgery Quality Consortium

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Quality measures are tools used by physicians, health care systems, and payers to evaluate performance, monitor the outcomes of interventions, and inform quality improvement efforts. A paucity of quality measures exist that address hand surgery care. We completed a RAND/UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) Delphi Appropriateness process with the goal of developing and evaluating candidate hand surgery quality measures to be used for national quality measure development efforts. Methods A consortium of 9 academic upper limb surgeons completed a RAND/UCLA Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility of 44 candidate quality measures. These addressed hand problems the panelists felt were most appropriate for quality measure development. Panelists rated the measures on an ordinal scale between 1 (definitely not valid) and 9 (definitely valid) in 2 rounds (preliminary round and final round) with an intervening face-to-face discussion. Ratings from 1 to 3 were considered not valid, 4 to 6 as equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 as valid. If no more than 2 of the 9 ratings were outside the 3-point range that included the median (1–3, 4–6, or 7–9), the panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more of the panelists’ ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range and 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, the panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement on 43% (19) of the measures as important, 27% (12) as scientifically sound, 48% (21) as usable, and 59% (26) as feasible to complete. Ten measures met all 4 of these criteria and were, therefore, considered valid measurements of quality. Quality measures that were developed address outcomes (patient-reported outcomes for assessment and improvement of function) and processes of care (utilization rates of imaging, antibiotics, occupational therapy, ultrasound, and operative treatment). Conclusions The consortium developed 10 measures of hand surgery quality using a validated methodology. These measures merit further development. Clinical relevance Quality measures can be used to evaluate the quality of care provided by physicians and health systems and can inform quality and value-based reimbursement models.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)859-866.e3
JournalJournal of Hand Surgery
Volume42
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

Hand
Patient Outcome Assessment
Physicians
Los Angeles
Quality of Health Care
Occupational Therapy
Quality Improvement
Upper Extremity
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Delivery of Health Care
Health
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Hand surgery
  • performance measure
  • quality
  • quality measure
  • value

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Candidate Quality Measures for Hand Surgery. / Hand Surgery Quality Consortium.

In: Journal of Hand Surgery, Vol. 42, No. 11, 01.11.2017, p. 859-866.e3.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hand Surgery Quality Consortium 2017, 'Candidate Quality Measures for Hand Surgery', Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 859-866.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.005
Hand Surgery Quality Consortium. / Candidate Quality Measures for Hand Surgery. In: Journal of Hand Surgery. 2017 ; Vol. 42, No. 11. pp. 859-866.e3.
@article{0438d7b84a7542b39d6fa3f30afdf79a,
title = "Candidate Quality Measures for Hand Surgery",
abstract = "Purpose Quality measures are tools used by physicians, health care systems, and payers to evaluate performance, monitor the outcomes of interventions, and inform quality improvement efforts. A paucity of quality measures exist that address hand surgery care. We completed a RAND/UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) Delphi Appropriateness process with the goal of developing and evaluating candidate hand surgery quality measures to be used for national quality measure development efforts. Methods A consortium of 9 academic upper limb surgeons completed a RAND/UCLA Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility of 44 candidate quality measures. These addressed hand problems the panelists felt were most appropriate for quality measure development. Panelists rated the measures on an ordinal scale between 1 (definitely not valid) and 9 (definitely valid) in 2 rounds (preliminary round and final round) with an intervening face-to-face discussion. Ratings from 1 to 3 were considered not valid, 4 to 6 as equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 as valid. If no more than 2 of the 9 ratings were outside the 3-point range that included the median (1–3, 4–6, or 7–9), the panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more of the panelists’ ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range and 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, the panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement on 43{\%} (19) of the measures as important, 27{\%} (12) as scientifically sound, 48{\%} (21) as usable, and 59{\%} (26) as feasible to complete. Ten measures met all 4 of these criteria and were, therefore, considered valid measurements of quality. Quality measures that were developed address outcomes (patient-reported outcomes for assessment and improvement of function) and processes of care (utilization rates of imaging, antibiotics, occupational therapy, ultrasound, and operative treatment). Conclusions The consortium developed 10 measures of hand surgery quality using a validated methodology. These measures merit further development. Clinical relevance Quality measures can be used to evaluate the quality of care provided by physicians and health systems and can inform quality and value-based reimbursement models.",
keywords = "Hand surgery, performance measure, quality, quality measure, value",
author = "{Hand Surgery Quality Consortium} and Kamal, {Robin N.} and Edward Akelman and Ruch, {David S.} and Richard, {Marc J.} and Amy Ladd and Chris Got and Phil Blazar and Jeff Yao and Sanjeev Kakar and Harris, {Alex H.S.} and David Ring",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "859--866.e3",
journal = "Journal of Hand Surgery",
issn = "0266-7681",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Candidate Quality Measures for Hand Surgery

AU - Hand Surgery Quality Consortium

AU - Kamal, Robin N.

AU - Akelman, Edward

AU - Ruch, David S.

AU - Richard, Marc J.

AU - Ladd, Amy

AU - Got, Chris

AU - Blazar, Phil

AU - Yao, Jeff

AU - Kakar, Sanjeev

AU - Harris, Alex H.S.

AU - Ring, David

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Purpose Quality measures are tools used by physicians, health care systems, and payers to evaluate performance, monitor the outcomes of interventions, and inform quality improvement efforts. A paucity of quality measures exist that address hand surgery care. We completed a RAND/UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) Delphi Appropriateness process with the goal of developing and evaluating candidate hand surgery quality measures to be used for national quality measure development efforts. Methods A consortium of 9 academic upper limb surgeons completed a RAND/UCLA Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility of 44 candidate quality measures. These addressed hand problems the panelists felt were most appropriate for quality measure development. Panelists rated the measures on an ordinal scale between 1 (definitely not valid) and 9 (definitely valid) in 2 rounds (preliminary round and final round) with an intervening face-to-face discussion. Ratings from 1 to 3 were considered not valid, 4 to 6 as equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 as valid. If no more than 2 of the 9 ratings were outside the 3-point range that included the median (1–3, 4–6, or 7–9), the panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more of the panelists’ ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range and 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, the panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement on 43% (19) of the measures as important, 27% (12) as scientifically sound, 48% (21) as usable, and 59% (26) as feasible to complete. Ten measures met all 4 of these criteria and were, therefore, considered valid measurements of quality. Quality measures that were developed address outcomes (patient-reported outcomes for assessment and improvement of function) and processes of care (utilization rates of imaging, antibiotics, occupational therapy, ultrasound, and operative treatment). Conclusions The consortium developed 10 measures of hand surgery quality using a validated methodology. These measures merit further development. Clinical relevance Quality measures can be used to evaluate the quality of care provided by physicians and health systems and can inform quality and value-based reimbursement models.

AB - Purpose Quality measures are tools used by physicians, health care systems, and payers to evaluate performance, monitor the outcomes of interventions, and inform quality improvement efforts. A paucity of quality measures exist that address hand surgery care. We completed a RAND/UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) Delphi Appropriateness process with the goal of developing and evaluating candidate hand surgery quality measures to be used for national quality measure development efforts. Methods A consortium of 9 academic upper limb surgeons completed a RAND/UCLA Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility of 44 candidate quality measures. These addressed hand problems the panelists felt were most appropriate for quality measure development. Panelists rated the measures on an ordinal scale between 1 (definitely not valid) and 9 (definitely valid) in 2 rounds (preliminary round and final round) with an intervening face-to-face discussion. Ratings from 1 to 3 were considered not valid, 4 to 6 as equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 as valid. If no more than 2 of the 9 ratings were outside the 3-point range that included the median (1–3, 4–6, or 7–9), the panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more of the panelists’ ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range and 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, the panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement on 43% (19) of the measures as important, 27% (12) as scientifically sound, 48% (21) as usable, and 59% (26) as feasible to complete. Ten measures met all 4 of these criteria and were, therefore, considered valid measurements of quality. Quality measures that were developed address outcomes (patient-reported outcomes for assessment and improvement of function) and processes of care (utilization rates of imaging, antibiotics, occupational therapy, ultrasound, and operative treatment). Conclusions The consortium developed 10 measures of hand surgery quality using a validated methodology. These measures merit further development. Clinical relevance Quality measures can be used to evaluate the quality of care provided by physicians and health systems and can inform quality and value-based reimbursement models.

KW - Hand surgery

KW - performance measure

KW - quality

KW - quality measure

KW - value

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032840525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032840525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 28818350

AN - SCOPUS:85032840525

VL - 42

SP - 859-866.e3

JO - Journal of Hand Surgery

JF - Journal of Hand Surgery

SN - 0266-7681

IS - 11

ER -