Quality measures in upper limb surgery

Robin N. Kamal, David Ring, Edward Akelman, Jeffrey Yao, David S. Ruch, Marc Richard, Amy Ladd, Christopher Got, Philip Blazar, Sanjeev Kakar

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Quality measures are now commonplace and are increasingly tied to financial incentives. We reviewed the existing quality measures that address the upper limb and tested the null hypothesis that structure (capacity to deliver care), process (appropriate care), and outcome (the result of care) measures are equally represented. Methods: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures addressing upper limb surgery. Measures were characterized as structure, process, or outcome measures and were categorized according to their developer and their National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (National Quality Strategy) priority as articulated by the U.S. Department of Health &Human Services. Results: We identified 134 quality measures addressing the upper limb: 131 (98%) process and three (2%) outcome measures. The majority of the process measures address the National Quality Strategy priority of effective clinical care (90%), with the remainder addressing communication and care coordination (5%), person and caregiver-centered experience and outcomes (4%), and community/population health (1%). Conclusions: Our review identified opportunities to develop more measures in the structure and outcome domains as well as measures addressing patient and family engagement, public health, safety, care coordination, and efficient use of resources. The most common existing measures-process measures addressing care-might not be the best measures of upper limb surgery quality given the relative lack of evidence for their use in care improvement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)505-510
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume
Volume98
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 16 2016

Fingerprint

Upper Extremity
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Participation
Quality of Health Care
Health Services Research
Health
Quality Improvement
Practice Guidelines
PubMed
MEDLINE
Caregivers
Motivation
Public Health
Communication
Delivery of Health Care
Physicians
Safety
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kamal, R. N., Ring, D., Akelman, E., Yao, J., Ruch, D. S., Richard, M., ... Kakar, S. (2016). Quality measures in upper limb surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume, 98(6), 505-510. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00651

Quality measures in upper limb surgery. / Kamal, Robin N.; Ring, David; Akelman, Edward; Yao, Jeffrey; Ruch, David S.; Richard, Marc; Ladd, Amy; Got, Christopher; Blazar, Philip; Kakar, Sanjeev.

In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume, Vol. 98, No. 6, 16.03.2016, p. 505-510.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Kamal, RN, Ring, D, Akelman, E, Yao, J, Ruch, DS, Richard, M, Ladd, A, Got, C, Blazar, P & Kakar, S 2016, 'Quality measures in upper limb surgery', Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 505-510. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00651
Kamal RN, Ring D, Akelman E, Yao J, Ruch DS, Richard M et al. Quality measures in upper limb surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume. 2016 Mar 16;98(6):505-510. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00651
Kamal, Robin N. ; Ring, David ; Akelman, Edward ; Yao, Jeffrey ; Ruch, David S. ; Richard, Marc ; Ladd, Amy ; Got, Christopher ; Blazar, Philip ; Kakar, Sanjeev. / Quality measures in upper limb surgery. In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume. 2016 ; Vol. 98, No. 6. pp. 505-510.
@article{fd1ad35d6b964064880493af3d2a882f,
title = "Quality measures in upper limb surgery",
abstract = "Background: Quality measures are now commonplace and are increasingly tied to financial incentives. We reviewed the existing quality measures that address the upper limb and tested the null hypothesis that structure (capacity to deliver care), process (appropriate care), and outcome (the result of care) measures are equally represented. Methods: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures addressing upper limb surgery. Measures were characterized as structure, process, or outcome measures and were categorized according to their developer and their National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (National Quality Strategy) priority as articulated by the U.S. Department of Health &Human Services. Results: We identified 134 quality measures addressing the upper limb: 131 (98{\%}) process and three (2{\%}) outcome measures. The majority of the process measures address the National Quality Strategy priority of effective clinical care (90{\%}), with the remainder addressing communication and care coordination (5{\%}), person and caregiver-centered experience and outcomes (4{\%}), and community/population health (1{\%}). Conclusions: Our review identified opportunities to develop more measures in the structure and outcome domains as well as measures addressing patient and family engagement, public health, safety, care coordination, and efficient use of resources. The most common existing measures-process measures addressing care-might not be the best measures of upper limb surgery quality given the relative lack of evidence for their use in care improvement.",
author = "Kamal, {Robin N.} and David Ring and Edward Akelman and Jeffrey Yao and Ruch, {David S.} and Marc Richard and Amy Ladd and Christopher Got and Philip Blazar and Sanjeev Kakar",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "16",
doi = "10.2106/JBJS.15.00651",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "98",
pages = "505--510",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume",
issn = "0021-9355",
publisher = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality measures in upper limb surgery

AU - Kamal, Robin N.

AU - Ring, David

AU - Akelman, Edward

AU - Yao, Jeffrey

AU - Ruch, David S.

AU - Richard, Marc

AU - Ladd, Amy

AU - Got, Christopher

AU - Blazar, Philip

AU - Kakar, Sanjeev

PY - 2016/3/16

Y1 - 2016/3/16

N2 - Background: Quality measures are now commonplace and are increasingly tied to financial incentives. We reviewed the existing quality measures that address the upper limb and tested the null hypothesis that structure (capacity to deliver care), process (appropriate care), and outcome (the result of care) measures are equally represented. Methods: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures addressing upper limb surgery. Measures were characterized as structure, process, or outcome measures and were categorized according to their developer and their National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (National Quality Strategy) priority as articulated by the U.S. Department of Health &Human Services. Results: We identified 134 quality measures addressing the upper limb: 131 (98%) process and three (2%) outcome measures. The majority of the process measures address the National Quality Strategy priority of effective clinical care (90%), with the remainder addressing communication and care coordination (5%), person and caregiver-centered experience and outcomes (4%), and community/population health (1%). Conclusions: Our review identified opportunities to develop more measures in the structure and outcome domains as well as measures addressing patient and family engagement, public health, safety, care coordination, and efficient use of resources. The most common existing measures-process measures addressing care-might not be the best measures of upper limb surgery quality given the relative lack of evidence for their use in care improvement.

AB - Background: Quality measures are now commonplace and are increasingly tied to financial incentives. We reviewed the existing quality measures that address the upper limb and tested the null hypothesis that structure (capacity to deliver care), process (appropriate care), and outcome (the result of care) measures are equally represented. Methods: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures addressing upper limb surgery. Measures were characterized as structure, process, or outcome measures and were categorized according to their developer and their National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (National Quality Strategy) priority as articulated by the U.S. Department of Health &Human Services. Results: We identified 134 quality measures addressing the upper limb: 131 (98%) process and three (2%) outcome measures. The majority of the process measures address the National Quality Strategy priority of effective clinical care (90%), with the remainder addressing communication and care coordination (5%), person and caregiver-centered experience and outcomes (4%), and community/population health (1%). Conclusions: Our review identified opportunities to develop more measures in the structure and outcome domains as well as measures addressing patient and family engagement, public health, safety, care coordination, and efficient use of resources. The most common existing measures-process measures addressing care-might not be the best measures of upper limb surgery quality given the relative lack of evidence for their use in care improvement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979236418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979236418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2106/JBJS.15.00651

DO - 10.2106/JBJS.15.00651

M3 - Review article

VL - 98

SP - 505

EP - 510

JO - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

JF - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

SN - 0021-9355

IS - 6

ER -