Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Public reporting and transparency: a primer on public outcomes reporting.
Romanelli, John R; Fuchshuber, Pascal R; Stulberg, Jonah James; Kowalski, Rebecca Brewer; Sinha, Prashant; Aloia, Thomas A; Orlando, Rocco.
Afiliação
  • Romanelli JR; Department of Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, 759 Chestnut Street, S3656, Springfield, MA, 01085, USA. john.romanelli@baystatehealth.org.
  • Fuchshuber PR; Kaiser Permanente, Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
  • Stulberg JJ; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA.
  • Kowalski RB; Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
  • Sinha P; NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
  • Aloia TA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
  • Orlando R; Hartford Healthcare, Hartford, CT, USA.
Surg Endosc ; 33(7): 2043-2049, 2019 07.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31161288
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare consumers seeking accurate information about where to find quality surgical care face a confusing constellation of rating systems that lack transparency or consistency of opinion. For example, a 2016 report in Health Affairs demonstrated that no hospital was rated as a high performer by all four prominent national ratings systems: Consumer Reports, Leapfrog, Healthgrades and U.S. News & World Report (Austin et al. Health Aff 34:423-430, 2015). Surgeons should have an understanding of the current state of public reporting of quality; hospital ratings and data sources; physician ratings and data sources; and transparency of reporting. METHODS: We conducted a non-systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Hospital quality ratings remain nebulous and there is not universal opinion on the utility of voluntary participation in ranking systems, leaving the current systems largely opinion-based. Early attempts at physician ranking systems are rudimentary at best and suffer from methodological concerns. Publicly reported metrics should be easily understandable, accessible, clinically relevant, reliable, non-punitive, and shielded from legal discovery. Transparency is increasing within institutions to help align staff to institutional objectives, while specialty specific registries are helping to standardize care pathways and outcomes measures across organizations. Measuring surgical outcomes beyond 30-day morbidity and mortality has been plagued by a lack of understanding on how to create metrics that matter; the four attributes of relevance, scientific soundness, feasibility and comprehensiveness set a high bar for the development of effective and efficient quality measures in surgery. DISCUSSION: SAGES, via the Quality, Outcomes, and Safety Committee, is committed to learning how to develop meaningful quality metrics in general surgery and will continue to work in other areas that impact quality, such as opioid prescribing, and surgeon wellness.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde / Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios / Padrões de Prática Médica / Saúde Pública / Cirurgiões Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde / Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios / Padrões de Prática Médica / Saúde Pública / Cirurgiões Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article