ABSTRACT
The Triple Aim: improving healthcare quality, cost and patient experience has resulted in massive healthcare "quality" measurement. For many surgeons the origins, intent and strengths of this measurement barrage seems nebulous-though their shortcomings are noticeable. This article reviews the major organizations and programs (namely the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) driving the somewhat burdensome healthcare quality climate. The success of this top-down approach is mixed, and far from convincing. We contend that the current programs disproportionately reflect the definitions of quality from (and the interests of) the national payer perspective; rather than a more balanced representation of all stakeholders interests-most importantly, patients' beneficence. The result is an environment more like performance management than one of valid quality assessment. Suggestions for a more meaningful construction of surgical quality measurement are offered, as well as a strategy to describe surgical quality from all of the stakeholders' perspectives. Our hope is to entice surgeons to engage in institution level quality improvement initiatives that promise utility and are less utopian than what is currently present.
