Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

An SGO commentary: U.S. News and World Report gynecologic oncology procedural ratings-Do they reflect high-quality care?

▪ ▪ ▪.

Comparing methods for assessing the reliability of health care quality measures.

Quality measurement plays an increasing role in U.S. health care. Measures inform quality improvement efforts, public reporting of variations in quality of care across providers and hospitals, and high-stakes financial decisions. To be meaningful in these contexts, measures should be reliable and not heavily impacted by chance variations in sampling or measurement. Several different methods are used in practice by measure developers and endorsers to evaluate reliability; however, there is uncertainty and debate over differences between these methods and their interpretations. We review methods currently used in practice, pointing out differences that can lead to disparate reliability estimates. We compare estimates from 14 different methods in the case of two sets of mental health quality measures within a large health system. We find that estimates can differ substantially and that these discrepancies widen when sample size is reduced.

Analysing the intra and interregional components of spatial accessibility gravity model to capture the level of equity in the distribution of hospital services in Italy: do they influence patient mobility?

BACKGROUND: An equal distribution of hospital structures represents an important factor to achieve Universal Health Coverage. Generally, the most diffused approach to measure the potential availability to healthcare is the provider-to-population ratio based on the number of beds or professionals. However, this approach considers only the availability of resources provided at regional or local level ignoring the spatial accessibility of interregional facilities that are particularly accessed by patients living at the borders. Aim of this study is to outline the distribution of the intra and interregional services in Italy to capture the level of equity across the country. Moreover, it explores the impact of the accessibility to these resources on interregional patient's mobility to receive care. METHODS: To compute spatial accessibility, we propose an alternative approach that applies the enhanced two-step floating catchment area (ESFCA) to capture the level of attraction of intra and interregional hospitals to a given population. Moreover, the adoption of process and outcome indices captured to what extent the quality of structures influenced patients in choosing services located inside or outside their region of residence. RESULTS: The study confirms that there is an unequal distribution of high-quality resources at regional and national level with a high level of inequality in the availability and accessibility of quality resources between the north and south part of Italy. This is particularly true considering the accessibility of intraregional resources in the southern part of the country that clearly influences patient choice and contribute to a significant cross border passive mobility to northern regions. This is confirmed by an econometric model that showed a significant effect of spatial accessibility with the propensity of patients of travel from the region of residence to receive care. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of intra and interregional components of spatial accessibility may contribute to identify to what extent patients are willing to travel outside their region of residence to access to care services. Moreover, it can contribute to gain a deeper understanding of the allocation of health resources providing input for policy makers on the basis of the principles of service accessibility in order to contain patient mobility.

People-centered primary care measures in health equity: a perspective of urban-rural comparison in Beijing, China.

Person-centered primary care measures (PCPCM) facilitate high-quality and culturally appropriate primary care. Access to PCPCM remains unequal between rural and urban areas, and the available evidence on rural PCPCM is still lacking. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with stratified sampling by regions, and four districts (Xicheng, Fengtai, Huairou, and Daxing) in Beijing were selected to test the performance of PCPCM in both urban and rural areas. Descriptive statistical methods were used to compare the urban-rural differences in the demographic characteristics of PCPCM. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to determine the associations between PCPCM in demographics and utilization of primary care. The PCPCM showed good reliability and validity in both urban and rural areas (P < .001), slightly lower in rural areas, but scores of rural PCPCM (R-PCPCM) in all items were lower than urban PCPCM (U-PCPCM). Patients in either the preferred urban or rural health centers all showed the highest PCPCM scores, with U-PCPCM= 3.31 for CHCs and R-PCPCM= 3.10 for RHCs, respectively. Patients in urban areas were more likely to receive higher-quality primary care than in rural areas (P < .001). Patients who preferred hospitals (ß = 2.61, P < .001) or CHCs (ß = 0.71, P = .003) as providers was a significant positive predictor of U-PCPCM but it was the preference for hospitals (ß = 2.95, P < .001) for R-PCPCM. Urban-rural differences existed in the performance of PCPCM, with rural areas typically more difficult to access better PCPCM. To promote health equity in rural areas, healthcare providers should strive to minimize urban-rural differences in the quality and utilization of primary care services as much as feasible.

Quality Measurement of Consumer Health Questions: Content and Language Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Health information consumers increasingly rely on question-and-answer (Q&A) communities to address their health concerns. However, the quality of questions posted significantly impacts the likelihood and relevance of received answers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to improve our understanding of the quality of health questions within web-based Q&A communities. METHODS: We develop a novel framework for defining and measuring question quality within web-based health communities, incorporating content- and language-based variables. This framework leverages k-means clustering and establishes automated metrics to assess overall question quality. To validate our framework, we analyze questions related to kidney disease from expert-curated and community-based Q&A platforms. Expert evaluations confirm the validity of our quality construct, while regression analysis helps identify key variables. RESULTS: High-quality questions were more likely to include demographic and medical information than lower-quality questions (P<.001). In contrast, asking questions at the various stages of disease development was less likely to reflect high-quality questions (P<.001). Low-quality questions were generally shorter with lengthier sentences than high-quality questions (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings empower consumers to formulate more effective health information questions, ultimately leading to better engagement and more valuable insights within web-based Q&A communities. Furthermore, our findings provide valuable insights for platform developers and moderators seeking to enhance the quality of user interactions and foster a more trustworthy and informative environment for health information exchange.

Smart Water Quality Monitoring with IoT Wireless Sensor Networks.

Traditional laboratory-based water quality monitoring and testing approaches are soon to be outdated, mainly because of the need for real-time feedback and immediate responses to emergencies. The more recent wireless sensor network (WSN)-based techniques are evolving to alleviate the problems of monitoring, coverage, and energy management, among others. The inclusion of the Internet of Things (IoT) in WSN techniques can further lead to their improvement in delivering, in real time, effective and efficient water-monitoring systems, reaping from the benefits of IoT wireless systems. However, they still suffer from the inability to deliver accurate real-time data, a lack of reconfigurability, the need to be deployed in ad hoc harsh environments, and their limited acceptability within industry. Electronic sensors are required for them to be effectively incorporated into the IoT WSN water-quality-monitoring system. Very few electronic sensors exist for parameter measurement. This necessitates the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) sensory techniques for smart water-quality-monitoring systems for indicators without actual electronic sensors by relating with available sensor data. This approach is in its infancy and is still not yet accepted nor standardized by the industry. This work presents a smart water-quality-monitoring framework featuring an intelligent IoT WSN monitoring system. The system uses AI sensors for indicators without electronic sensors, as the design of electronic sensors is lagging behind monitoring systems. In particular, machine learning algorithms are used to predict E. coli concentrations in water. Six different machine learning models (ridge regression, random forest regressor, stochastic gradient boosting, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, and AdaBoost regressor) are used on a sourced dataset. From the results, the best-performing model on average during testing was the AdaBoost regressor (a MAE¯ of 14.37 counts/100 mL), and the worst-performing model was stochastic gradient boosting (a MAE¯ of 42.27 counts/100 mL). The development and application of such a system is not trivial. The best-performing water parameter set (Set A) contained pH, conductivity, chloride, turbidity, nitrates, and chlorophyll.

Benchmarking institutional geriatric hip fracture management: a prelude to a care quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Fractures around the hip in older adults have increased in the last two decades, and the numbers are projected to rise over the next 30 years with estimates that half of them will occur in Asia. Proximal hip fractures should be operated within 48 h of injury to prevent poor outcomes. This study aims to benchmark current hip fracture care using quality improvement tools of care structure, care processes, and outcomes in a tertiary care hospital in Eastern India and determine the evidence-practice gaps and barriers to implementing the six best practices that reduce mortality and morbidity in fragility hip fractures. METHODS: A total of 101 consecutive patients above 50 years of age with proximal femoral fractures after a trivial fall were included. Patients were divided into two groups: those operated within [Group A] and beyond [Group B] 72 h of admission. Care structure assessment included delays in admission, delay in surgery, and anesthesia risk grading. Care processes included the type of surgery performed and postoperative complications. The primary outcomes were the 30-day and 1-year mortality and the secondary outcomes included the length of stay, mobility at 6 months, return to pre-fracture independence, activity limitations, pressure sores, and readmission to the hospital. RESULTS: Group A comprised 26 individuals, and the remaining 75 were in Group B. There were two deaths in Group A as compared to one death in Group B at 30 days; however, there were no new deaths at 1 year in Group A and 14 deaths in Group B (p = 0.187). Group B had lengthier hospital stays, poorer mobility, and higher physical and mental difficulties. No patients had re-operation on the initial fracture. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of early admission and fast provision of surgical fixation to reduce mortality and morbidity. Benchmarking institutional practices allows for defining the evidence-practice gaps and barriers to best practice implementation. This is an essential step to begin care quality improvement for geriatric patients with proximal femur fragility fractures.

Validation of patient- and GP-reported core sets of quality indicators for older adults with multimorbidity in primary care: results of the cross-sectional observational MULTIqual validation study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with multimorbidity represent a growing segment of the population. Metrics to assess quality, safety and effectiveness of care can support policy makers and healthcare providers in addressing patient needs. However, there is a lack of valid measures of quality of care for this population. In the MULTIqual project, 24 general practitioner (GP)-reported and 14 patient-reported quality indicators for the healthcare of older adults with multimorbidity were developed in Germany in a systematic approach. This study aimed to select, validate and pilot core sets of these indicators. METHODS: In a cross-sectional observational study, we collected data in general practices (n = 35) and patients aged 65 years and older with three or more chronic conditions (n = 346). One-dimensional core sets for both perspectives were selected by stepwise backward selection based on corrected item-total correlations. We established structural validity, discriminative capacity, feasibility and patient-professional agreement for the selected indicators. Multilevel multivariable linear regression models adjusted for random effects at practice level were calculated to examine construct validity. RESULTS: Twelve GP-reported and seven patient-reported indicators were selected, with item-total correlations ranging from 0.332 to 0.576. Fulfilment rates ranged from 24.6 to 89.0%. Between 0 and 12.7% of the values were missing. Seventeen indicators had agreement rates between patients and professionals of 24.1% to 75.9% and one had 90.7% positive and 5.1% negative agreement. Patients who were born abroad (- 1.04, 95% CI = - 2.00/ - 0.08, p = 0.033) and had higher health-related quality of life (- 1.37, 95% CI = - 2.39/ - 0.36, p = 0.008), fewer contacts with their GP (0.14, 95% CI = 0.04/0.23, p = 0.007) and lower willingness to use their GPs as coordinators of their care (0.13, 95% CI = 0.06/0.20, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower GP-reported healthcare quality scores. Patients who had fewer GP contacts (0.12, 95% CI = 0.04/0.20, p = 0.002) and were less willing to use their GP to coordinate their care (0.16, 95% CI = 0.10/0.21, p < 0.001) were more likely to have lower patient-reported healthcare quality scores. CONCLUSIONS: The quality indicator core sets are the first brief measurement tools specifically designed to assess quality of care for patients with multimorbidity. The indicators can facilitate implementation of treatment standards and offer viable alternatives to the current practice of combining disease-related metrics with poor applicability to patients with multimorbidity.

A composite measure for patient-reported outcomes in orthopedic care: design principles and validity checks.

BACKGROUND: The complex, multidimensional nature of healthcare quality makes provider and treatment decisions based on quality difficult. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can enhance patient centricity and involvement. The proliferation of PRO measures, however, requires a simplification to improve comprehensibility. Composite measures can simplify complex data without sacrificing the underlying information. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We propose a five-step development approach to combine different PRO into one composite measure (PRO-CM): (i) theoretical framework and metric selection, (ii) initial data analysis, (iii) rescaling, (iv) weighting and aggregation, and (v) sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. We evaluate different rescaling, weighting, and aggregation methods by utilizing data of 3145 hip and 2605 knee replacement patients, to identify the most advantageous development approach for a PRO-CM that reflects quality variations from a patient perspective. RESULTS: The comparison of different methods within steps (iii) and (iv) reveals the following methods as most advantageous: (iii) rescaling via z-score standardization and (iv) applying differential weights and additive aggregation. The resulting PRO-CM is most sensitive to variations in physical health. Changing weighting schemes impacts the PRO-CM most directly, while it proves more robust towards different rescaling and aggregation approaches. CONCLUSION: Combining multiple PRO provides a holistic picture of patients' health improvement. The PRO-CM can enhance patient understanding and simplify reporting and monitoring of PRO. However, the development methodology of a PRO-CM needs to be justified and transparent to ensure that it is comprehensible and replicable. This is essential to address the well-known problems associated with composites, such as misinterpretation and lack of trust.

Dietary diversity indices v. dietary guideline-based indices and their associations with non-communicable diseases, overweight and energy intake: evidence from China.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate various diet quality indices and to estimate their associations with major non-communicable diseases (NCD) (i.e. diabetes mellitus (DM) and myocardial infarction (MI)) and risk for overweight (OW). DESIGN: Four dietary diversity indices (namely, count index (Count), dietary diversity score index, berry index (BI) and entropy index (EI)) and three Chinese dietary guideline-based indices (namely, China healthy diet index, Chinese food pagoda score and diet quality divergence index) were employed to evaluate Chinese diet quality. DM, MI and OW were used as diet-related health indicators. Logit regressions were employed to unveil the associations between diet quality indices and NCD and risk for OW. The relationships between diet quality indices and daily energy intakes were checked with ordinary least squares linear regressions. SETTING: Four recent waves (2004, 2006, 2009, 2011) of longitudinal individual data from China Health and Nutrition Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Chinese adults (aged 18-64 years) from twelve provinces were included in the analysis (n 30 350). RESULTS: Count, BI, and EI were positively associated with higher OW risk and daily energy intakes. As dietary guideline-based indices got better, people were exposed to lower DM and OW risks and got lower daily energy intakes. Finally, dietary guideline-based indices properly revealed the expected relationships that high-quality diets would reduce NCD and risk for OW, while high diversity indices were usually correlated with over-nutrition and high risks. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing diversity of the diet does not necessarily improve the nutrition and health. Dietary guideline-based indices are more robust than dietary diversity indices; thus, they should be highly recommended when evaluating diet quality.

Quality and safety in residential aged care: an evaluation of a national quality indicator programme.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, 243 000 individuals live in approximately 2700 residential aged care facilities yearly. In 2019, a National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator programme (QI programme) was implemented to monitor the quality and safety of care in facilities. AIM: To examine the validity of the QI programme indicators using explicit measure review criteria. METHODS: The QI programme manual and reports were reviewed. A modified American College of Physicians Measure Review Criteria was employed to examine the QI programme's eight indicators. Five authors rated each indicator on importance, appropriateness, clinical evidence, specifications and feasibility using a nine-point scale. A median score of 1-3 was considered to not meet criteria, 4-6 to meet some criteria and 7-9 to meet criteria. RESULTS: All indicators, except polypharmacy, met criteria (median scores = 7-9) for importance, appropriateness and clinical evidence. Polypharmacy met some criteria for importance (median = 6, range 2-8), appropriateness (median = 5, range 2-8) and clinical evidence (median = 6, range 3-8). Pressure injury, physical restraints, significant unplanned weight loss, consecutive unplanned weight loss, falls and polypharmacy indicators met some criteria for specifications validity (all median scores = 5) and feasibility and applicability (median scores = 4 to 6). Antipsychotic use and falls resulting in major injury met some criteria for specifications (median = 6-7, range 4-8) and met criteria for feasibility and applicability (median = 7, range 4-8). CONCLUSIONS: Australia's National QI programme is a major stride towards a culture of quality promotion, improvement and transparency. Measures' specifications, feasibility and applicability could be improved to ensure the programme delivers on its intended purposes.

Exploring nursing home resident and their care partner priorities for care using the Action-Project Method.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) residents' experiences are embedded within their relationships to others. Our objectives were to describe how residents and care partners (family or staff members) jointly construct, discuss, and act on care priorities. METHODS: We used Action-Project Method, a qualitative method focused on action within social context. We recruited 15 residents and 12 care partners (5 family and 7 staff members) from 3 urban NHs in Alberta, Canada. Residents and care partners participated in a video-recorded conversation about their experiences in the NH, then individually reviewed the video-recording to add context to the conversation. Following transcription, preliminary narrative construction, and participant feedback, the research team conducted in-depth analysis to identify participant actions, goals, and projects, including those jointly shared by dyad members. RESULTS: All participants' intentions could be broadly described as "making time in the NH as good as possible" and projects were grouped into five categories: resident identity, relationships (both presence and absence), advocacy, positivity, and respectful care. Participants often raised issues of short-staffing as a significant barrier to respectful care. Care partners, especially staff, used positivity to redirect residents from difficult topics. Joint projects could be identified in some, but not all, cases. CONCLUSIONS: We found that maintaining a sense of identity, fostering relationships, and receiving respectful care were important to residents but that short-staffing created barriers. Methods to capture these aspects of the resident experience are needed but should not be influenced by care partners' tendency towards positivity in resident interactions.

Does the implementation of an incentive scheme increase adherence to diabetes guidelines? A retrospective cohort study of managed care enrollees.

BACKGROUND: A novel incentive scheme based on a joint agreement of a large Swiss health insurance with 56 physician networks was implemented in 2018. This study evaluated the effect of its implementation on adherence to evidence-based guidelines among patients with diabetes in managed care models. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, using health care claims data from patients with diabetes enrolled in a managed care plan (2016-2019). Guideline adherence was assessed by four evidence-based performance measures and four hierarchically constructed adherence levels. Generalized multilevel models were used to examine the effect of the incentive scheme on guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 6'273 patients with diabetes were included in this study. The raw descriptive statistics showed minor improvements in guideline adherence after the implementation. After adjusting for underlying patient characteristics and potential differences between physician networks, the likelihood of receiving a test was moderately but consistently higher after the implementation of the incentive scheme for most performance measures, ranging from 18% (albuminuria: OR, 1.18; 95%-CI, 1.05-1.33) to 58% (HDL cholesterol: OR, 1.58; 95%-CI, 1.40-1.78). Full adherence was more likely after implementation of the incentive scheme (OR, 1.37; 95%-CI, 1.20-1.55), whereas level 1 significantly decreased (OR, 0.74; 95%-CI, 0.65 - 0.85). The proportions of the other adherence levels were stable. CONCLUSION: Incentive schemes including transparency of the achieved performance may be able to improve guideline adherence in patients with diabetes and are promising to increase quality of care in this patient population.

Developing quality indicators for cross-sectoral psycho-oncology in Germany: combining the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method with a Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, the need for appropriately structured, high-quality care in psycho-oncology is more and more recognized and quality-oriented care is to be established. Quality indicators are becoming increasingly important for a systematic development and improvement of the quality of care. The aim of this study was to develop a set of quality indicators for a new form of care, a cross-sectoral psycho-oncological care program in the German health care system. METHODS: The widely established RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was combined with a modified Delphi technique. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify existing indicators. All identified indicators were evaluated and rated in a two-round Delphi process. Expert panels embedded in the Delphi process assessed the indicators in terms of relevance, data availability and feasibility. An indicator was accepted by consensus if at least 75% of the ratings corresponded to category 4 or 5 on a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of the 88 potential indicators derived from a systematic literature review and other sources, 29 were deemed relevant in the first Delphi round. After the first expert panel, 28 of the dissented indicators were re-rated and added. Of these 57 indicators, 45 were found to be feasible in terms of data availability by the second round of expert panel. In total, 22 indicators were transferred into a quality report, implemented and tested within the care networks for participatory quality improvement. In the second Delphi round, the embedded indicators were tested for their practicability. The final set includes 16 indicators that were operationalized in care practice and rated by the expert panel as relevant, comprehensible, and suitable for care practice. CONCLUSION: The developed set of quality indicators has proven in practical testing to be a valid quality assurance tool for internal and external quality management. The study findings could contribute to traceable high quality in cross-sectoral psycho-oncology by providing a valid and comprehensive set of quality indicators. TRIAL REGISTRATION: "Entwicklung eines Qualitätsmanagementsystems in der integrierten, sektorenübergreifenden Psychoonkologie-AP "Qualitätsmanagement und Versorgungsmanagement" zur Studie "integrierte, sektorenübergreifende Psychoonkologie (isPO)" a sub-project of the "integrierte, sektorenübergreifende Psychoonkologie (isPO)", was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) (DRKS-ID: DRKS00021515) on 3rd September 2020. The main project was registered on 30th October 2018 (DRKS-ID: DRKS00015326).

Design and validation of indicators for the comprehensive measurement of quality of care for type 2 diabetes and acute respiratory infections in ambulatory health services.

Developing ambulatory health services (AHS) of optimal quality is a pending issue for many health systems at a global level, especially in middle- and low-income countries. An effective health response requires indicators to measure the quality of care that are context-specific and feasible for routine monitoring. This paper aimed to design and validate indicators for assessing the technical and interpersonal quality dimensions for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and acute respiratory infections (ARI) care in AHS. The study was conducted in two stages. First, technical and user-centered-based indicators of quality of care for T2D and ARI care were designed following international recommendations, mainly from the American Diabetes Association standards and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We then assessed the validity, reliability, relevance, and feasibility of the proposed indicators implementing the modified Delphi technique. A panel of 17 medical experts from five countries scored the indicators using two electronic questionnaires, one for each reason for consultation selected, sent by email in two sequential rounds of rating. We defined the levels of consensus according to the overall median for each performance category, which was established as the threshold. Selected indicators included those with scores equal to or higher than the threshold. We designed 36 T2D indicators, of which 16 were validated for measuring the detection of risks and complications, glycemic control, pharmacological treatment, and patient-centered care. Out of the 22 indicators designed for ARI, we validated 10 for diagnosis, appropriate prescription of antimicrobials, and patient-centered care. The validated indicators showed consistency for the dimensions analyzed. Hence, they proved to be a potentially reliable and valuable tool for monitoring the performance of the various T2D and ARI care processes in AHS. Further research will be needed to verify the applicability of the validated indicators in routine clinical practice.

Surgical Complexity and Complications: The Need for a Common Language.

BACKGROUND: Quality measurement and outcome assessment have recently caught an attention of the neurosurgical community, but lack of standardized definitions and methodology significantly complicates these tasks. OBJECTIVE: To identify a uniform definition of neurosurgical complications, to classify them according to etiology, and to evaluate them comprehensively in cases of intracranial tumor removal in order to establish a new, easy, and practical grading system capable of predicting the risk of postoperative clinical worsening of the patient condition. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on all elective surgeries directed at removal of intracranial tumor in the authors' institution during 2-year study period. All sociodemographic, clinical, and surgical factors were extracted from prospectively compiled comprehensive patient registry. Data on all complications, defined as any deviation from the ideal postoperative course occurring within 30 days of the procedure, were collected with consideration of the required treatment and etiology. A logistic regression model was created for identification of independent factors associated with worsening of the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score at discharge after surgery in comparison with preoperative period. For each identified statistically significant independent predictor of the postoperative worsening, corresponding score was defined, and grading system, subsequently named Milan Complexity Scale (MCS), was formed. RESULTS: Overall, 746 cases of surgeries for removal of intracranial tumor were analyzed. Postoperative complications of any kind were observed in 311 patients (41.7%). In 223 cases (29.9%), worsening of the KPS score at the time of discharge in comparison with preoperative period was noted. It was independently associated with 5 predictive factors-major brain vessel manipulation, surgery in the posterior fossa, cranial nerve manipulation, surgery in the eloquent area, tumor size >4 cm-which comprised MCS with a range of the total score from 0 to 8 (higher score indicates more complex clinical situations). Patients who demonstrated KPS worsening after surgery had significantly higher total MCS scores in comparison with individuals whose clinical status at discharge was improved or unchanged (3.24 ± 1.55 versus 1.47 ± 1.58; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: It is reasonable to define neurosurgical complication as any deviation from the ideal postoperative course occurring within 30 days of the procedure. Suggested MCS allows for standardized assessment of surgical complexity before intervention and for estimating the risk of clinical worsening after removal of intracranial tumor. Collection of data on surgical complexity, occurrence of complications, and postoperative outcomes, using standardized prospectively maintained comprehensive patient registries seems very important for quality measurement and should be attained in all neurosurgical centers.

The Hawthorne Effect: Quality and Outcomes in Neurosurgery.

Measure something, and it gets better-this is what is called as the Hawthorne effect (also known as the observer effect). The Hawthorne factory experiments in 1920s were remarkable industrial data collection and analysis exercises that lead to Edwards Deming's quality revolution. The Harvard Medical Practice Study (1991), Leape's "Error in Medicine" (1994), and the Bristol pediatric cardiac report (2001) are among many documents that have revealed the huge gap between best practices and actual medical practice. Alarmed by the poor standards of quality at the most respected institutions, the medical fraternity therefore began visiting facilities in different fields and observing their quality assessment processes. The next leap for neurosurgery is to realize that it is unacceptable to treat patients with no regard for the standard of clinical outcomes. The traditional neurosurgery residency training has long ignored the most important issues of self-assessment, reappraisal, relearning, and measurement of skill and surgical outcomes. However, the experience taken from disparate fields, especially cardiac surgery, may encourage research and progress in measurement and improvement of quality in neurosurgery. Like cardiac surgeons, neurosurgeons must examine and analyze the results of their interventions. The concept of quality measurement is the most important single advance we can make in neurosurgery practice. Meticulous and precise measurement of outcomes will allow future progress of our specialty.

Non-respondents do not bias outcome assessment after cervical spine surgery: a multicenter observational study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery (NORspine).

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian registry for spine surgery (NORspine) is a national clinical quality registry which has recorded more than 10,000 operations for degenerative conditions of the cervical spine since 2012. Registries are large observational cohorts, at risk for attrition bias. We therefore aimed to examine whether clinical outcomes differed between respondents and non-respondents to standardized questionnaire-based 12-month follow-up. METHODS: All eight public and private providers of cervical spine surgery in Norway report to NORspine. We included 334 consecutive patients who were registered with surgical treatment of degenerative conditions in the cervical spine in 2018 and did a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected register data and data on non-respondents' outcomes collected by telephone interviews. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported change in arm pain assessed with the numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcome measures were change in neck pain assessed with the NRS, change in health-related quality of life assessed with EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and patients' perceived benefit of the operation assessed by the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale. RESULTS: At baseline, there were few and small differences between the 238 (71.3%) respondents and the 96 (28.7%) non-respondents. We reached 76 (79.2%) non-respondents by telephone, and 63 (65.6%) consented to an interview. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in change in NRS score for arm pain (3.26 (95% CI 2.84 to 3.69) points for respondents and 2.77 (1.92 to 3.63) points for telephone interviewees) or any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that patients lost to follow-up were missing at random. Analyses of outcomes based on data from respondents can be considered representative for the complete register cohort, if patient characteristics associated with attrition are controlled for.

Measuring the quality of skin cancer management in primary care: A scoping review.

Skin cancer is a growing global problem and a significant health and economic burden. Despite the practical necessity for skin cancer to be managed in primary care settings, little is known about how quality of care is or should be measured in this setting. This scoping review aimed to capture the breadth and range of contemporary evidence related to the measurement of quality in skin cancer management in primary care settings. Six databases were searched for relevant texts reporting on quality measurement in primary care skin cancer management. Data from 46 texts published since 2011 were extracted, and quality measures were catalogued according to the three domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process and outcome). Quality measures within each domain were inductively analysed into 13 key emergent groups. These represented what were deemed to be the most relevant components of skin cancer management as related to structure, process or outcomes measurement. Four groups related to the structural elements of care provision (e.g. diagnostic tools and equipment), five related to the process of care delivery (e.g. diagnostic processes) and four related to the outcomes of care (e.g. poor treatment outcomes). A broad range of quality measures have been documented, based predominantly on articles using retrospective cohort designs; systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials were limited.