Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb

Robin N. Kamal, David Ring, Edward Akelman, David S. Ruch, Marc J. Richard, Amy Ladd, Chris Got, Phil Blazar, Jeff Yao, Sanjeev Kakar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Physicians, health care systems, and payers use quality measures to judge performance and monitor the outcomes of interventions. Practicing upper-limb surgeons desire quality measures that are important to patients and feasible to use, and for which it is fair to hold them accountable. Methods Nine academic upper-limb surgeons completed a RAND/University of California–Los Angeles Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, feasibility, and accountability of 134 quality measures identified from systematic review. Panelists rated 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 were equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 were 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), panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range whereas 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement that 58 of the measures are important (43%), 74 are feasible (55%), and surgeons can be held accountable for 39 (29%). All 3 thresholds were met for 33 measures (25%). A total of 36 reached agreement for being unimportant (48%) and 57 were not suited for surgeon accountability (43%). Conclusions A minority of upper-limb quality measures were rated as important for care, feasible to complete, and suitable for upper-limb surgeon accountability. Clinical relevance Before health systems and payers implement quality measures, we recommend ensuring their importance and feasibility to safeguard against measures that may not improve care and might misappropriate attention and resources.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1041-1048.e22
JournalJournal of Hand Surgery
Volume41
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Upper Extremity
Social Responsibility
Surgeons
Delivery of Health Care
Physicians
Health

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Kamal, R. N., Ring, D., Akelman, E., Ruch, D. S., Richard, M. J., Ladd, A., ... Kakar, S. (2016). Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb. Journal of Hand Surgery, 41(11), 1041-1048.e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.107

Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb. / Kamal, Robin N.; Ring, David; Akelman, Edward; Ruch, David S.; Richard, Marc J.; Ladd, Amy; Got, Chris; Blazar, Phil; Yao, Jeff; Kakar, Sanjeev.

In: Journal of Hand Surgery, Vol. 41, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 1041-1048.e22.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kamal, RN, Ring, D, Akelman, E, Ruch, DS, Richard, MJ, Ladd, A, Got, C, Blazar, P, Yao, J & Kakar, S 2016, 'Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb', Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1041-1048.e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.107
Kamal RN, Ring D, Akelman E, Ruch DS, Richard MJ, Ladd A et al. Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016 Nov 1;41(11):1041-1048.e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.107
Kamal, Robin N. ; Ring, David ; Akelman, Edward ; Ruch, David S. ; Richard, Marc J. ; Ladd, Amy ; Got, Chris ; Blazar, Phil ; Yao, Jeff ; Kakar, Sanjeev. / Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb. In: Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 41, No. 11. pp. 1041-1048.e22.
@article{520248b6aed54b1c916ff5a8cbc9259c,
title = "Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb",
abstract = "Purpose Physicians, health care systems, and payers use quality measures to judge performance and monitor the outcomes of interventions. Practicing upper-limb surgeons desire quality measures that are important to patients and feasible to use, and for which it is fair to hold them accountable. Methods Nine academic upper-limb surgeons completed a RAND/University of California–Los Angeles Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, feasibility, and accountability of 134 quality measures identified from systematic review. Panelists rated 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 were equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 were 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), panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range whereas 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement that 58 of the measures are important (43{\%}), 74 are feasible (55{\%}), and surgeons can be held accountable for 39 (29{\%}). All 3 thresholds were met for 33 measures (25{\%}). A total of 36 reached agreement for being unimportant (48{\%}) and 57 were not suited for surgeon accountability (43{\%}). Conclusions A minority of upper-limb quality measures were rated as important for care, feasible to complete, and suitable for upper-limb surgeon accountability. Clinical relevance Before health systems and payers implement quality measures, we recommend ensuring their importance and feasibility to safeguard against measures that may not improve care and might misappropriate attention and resources.",
keywords = "Hand surgery, performance measure, quality, quality measure, value",
author = "Kamal, {Robin N.} and David Ring 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",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.107",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1041--1048.e22",
journal = "Journal of Hand Surgery",
issn = "0266-7681",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb

AU - Kamal, Robin N.

AU - Ring, David

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

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Purpose Physicians, health care systems, and payers use quality measures to judge performance and monitor the outcomes of interventions. Practicing upper-limb surgeons desire quality measures that are important to patients and feasible to use, and for which it is fair to hold them accountable. Methods Nine academic upper-limb surgeons completed a RAND/University of California–Los Angeles Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, feasibility, and accountability of 134 quality measures identified from systematic review. Panelists rated 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 were equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 were 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), panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range whereas 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement that 58 of the measures are important (43%), 74 are feasible (55%), and surgeons can be held accountable for 39 (29%). All 3 thresholds were met for 33 measures (25%). A total of 36 reached agreement for being unimportant (48%) and 57 were not suited for surgeon accountability (43%). Conclusions A minority of upper-limb quality measures were rated as important for care, feasible to complete, and suitable for upper-limb surgeon accountability. Clinical relevance Before health systems and payers implement quality measures, we recommend ensuring their importance and feasibility to safeguard against measures that may not improve care and might misappropriate attention and resources.

AB - Purpose Physicians, health care systems, and payers use quality measures to judge performance and monitor the outcomes of interventions. Practicing upper-limb surgeons desire quality measures that are important to patients and feasible to use, and for which it is fair to hold them accountable. Methods Nine academic upper-limb surgeons completed a RAND/University of California–Los Angeles Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, feasibility, and accountability of 134 quality measures identified from systematic review. Panelists rated 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 were equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 were 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), panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range whereas 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, panelists were considered to be in disagreement. Results There was agreement that 58 of the measures are important (43%), 74 are feasible (55%), and surgeons can be held accountable for 39 (29%). All 3 thresholds were met for 33 measures (25%). A total of 36 reached agreement for being unimportant (48%) and 57 were not suited for surgeon accountability (43%). Conclusions A minority of upper-limb quality measures were rated as important for care, feasible to complete, and suitable for upper-limb surgeon accountability. Clinical relevance Before health systems and payers implement quality measures, we recommend ensuring their importance and feasibility to safeguard against measures that may not improve care and might misappropriate attention and resources.

KW - Hand surgery

KW - performance measure

KW - quality

KW - quality measure

KW - value

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994376806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994376806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.107

DO - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.107

M3 - Article

C2 - 27577525

AN - SCOPUS:84994376806

VL - 41

SP - 1041-1048.e22

JO - Journal of Hand Surgery

JF - Journal of Hand Surgery

SN - 0266-7681

IS - 11

ER -