Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part III: Standardization, Protocols, and Achieving Better Outcomes for Patient Care.
Cardell, Chelsea F; Peters, Xane D; Hu, Q Lina; Robinson-Gerace, Amy; Mistretta, Stephanie; Wescott, Annie B; Maggard-Gibbons, Melinda; Hoyt, David B; Ko, Clifford Y.
Afiliación
  • Cardell CF; Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL.
  • Peters XD; Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL.
  • Hu QL; Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL.
  • Robinson-Gerace A; Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL.
  • Mistretta S; Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL.
  • Wescott AB; Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Maggard-Gibbons M; Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL.
  • Hoyt DB; Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL.
  • Ko CY; Galter Library & Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
J Am Coll Surg ; 2024 Jul 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38979920
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

After decades of experience supporting surgical quality and safety by the American College of Surgeons, the ACS Quality Verification Program (ACS QVP) was developed to help hospitals improve surgical quality and safety. This review is the final installment of a three-part review aimed to synthesize evidence supporting the main principles of the ACS QVP. STUDY

DESIGN:

Evidence was systematically reviewed for three principles standardized team-based care across five phases of surgical care, disease-based management, and external regulatory review. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 and two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 5,237 studies across these three topics were identified. Studies were included if they evaluated the relationship between the standard of interest and patient-level or organization measures within the last twenty years.

RESULTS:

After applying inclusion criteria, a total of 150 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. Despite institutional variation in standardized clinical pathways, evidence demonstrated improved outcomes such as reduced length of stay (LOS), costs, and complications. Evidence for multidisciplinary disease-based care protocols was mixed, though trended towards improving patient outcomes such as reduced LOS and readmissions. Similarly, the evidence for accreditation and adherence to external process measures was also mixed, though several studies demonstrated the benefit of accreditation programs on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS:

The identified literature supports the importance of standardized multidisciplinary and disease-based processes and external regulatory systems to improve quality of care.

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Am Coll Surg Asunto de la revista: GINECOLOGIA / OBSTETRICIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Am Coll Surg Asunto de la revista: GINECOLOGIA / OBSTETRICIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article