Hand Surgery Quality Consortium. Quality Measures That Address the Upper Limb

Patient-Derived Framework for Quality in Hand Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis

PURPOSE

Despite the growing attention to evaluating care from the patient perspective, the most common definitions and measurements of quality are currently defined by physicians and health systems. Studies have demonstrated how a lack of patient input can lead to discrepancies between patients' and physicians' assessments of quality and, subsequently, worse patient outcomes. Although quality measures are increasingly used in hand surgery, insufficient work has examined whether these quality measures align with what matters to patients. We completed a qualitative study to assess how patients define high-quality care through the pre-, peri-, and postoperative phases of care in hand surgery.

METHODS

Based on our prior work, we created an open-ended interview guide and conducted semistructured interviews with 43 hand surgery patients at 5 tertiary-care institutions during various phases of care. We completed a thematic analysis to generate subcodes and open codes, to identify themes in high-quality care from the patient perspective.

RESULTS

Patients defined high-quality care as a process of (1) setting and meeting clear expectations; (2) achieving functional goals after surgery; and (3) feeling comfortable with and cared for by the care team. We identified the following 4 patient-centered themes that contributed to high-quality care: (1) communication between the patient and care team through all phases of care; (2) efficient and accurate diagnosis and treatment; (3) satisfactory treatment outcomes and postsurgical experience; and (4) acceptable systemic aspects of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to improve health care delivery should include areas of care that are important to patients. Our results suggest that measuring aspects of care that often go without assessments, such as communication, can maximize care quality as defined by patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The themes identified in this study can inform efforts towards patient-centered quality measure development.

Patient Perspectives on the Cost of Hand Surgery

BACKGROUND

Health-care expenditures in the U.S. are continually rising, prompting providers, patients, and payers to search for solutions to reduce costs while maintaining quality. The present study seeks to define the out-of-pocket price that patients undergoing hand surgery are willing to pay, and also queries the potential cost-cutting measures that patients are most and least comfortable with. We hypothesized that respondents would be less accepting of higher out-of-pocket costs.

METHODS

A survey was developed and distributed to paid, anonymous respondents through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The survey introduced 3 procedures: carpal tunnel release, cubital tunnel release, and open reduction and internal fixation of a distal radial fracture. Respondents were randomized to 1 of 5 out-of-pocket price options for each procedure and asked if they would pay that price. Respondents were then presented with various cost-saving methods and asked to select the options that made them most uncomfortable, even if those would save them out-of-pocket costs.

RESULTS

There were 1,408 respondents with a mean age of 37 years (range, 18 to 74 years). Nearly 80% of respondents were willing to pay for all 3 of the procedures regardless of which price they were presented. Carpal tunnel release was the most price-sensitive, with rejection rates of 17% at the highest price ($3,000) and 6% at the lowest ($250). Open reduction and internal fixation was the least price-sensitive, with rejection rates of 11% and 6% at the highest and lowest price, respectively. The use of older-generation implants was the least acceptable cost-cutting measure, at 50% of respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that most patients are willing to pay a considerable amount of money out of pocket for hand surgery after the condition, treatment, and outcomes are explained to them. Furthermore, respondents are hesitant to sacrifice advanced technology despite increased costs.

Candidate Quality Measures for Orthopaedic Surgery Outreach Trips: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Up to 30% of the global burden of disease is secondary to surgical conditions, most of which falls on those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Ensuring that the quality of care delivered during outreach trips to address these conditions is foundational. Limited work has been done to develop and implement tools to assess and improve the quality of care for these trips. The purpose of this study was to identify candidate quality measures that address orthopaedic surgery outreach trips in LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and other databases to identify candidate quality measures relevant to orthopaedic surgery outreach to LMICs. Quality measures were then categorized by system management, sustainability, or both system management and sustainability according to the framework and structures, processes, and outcomes of Bido et al according to the Donabedian domains.

RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 3,891 articles, 22 of which met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-nine candidate quality measures were identified. Regarding the framework of Bido et al, 55 of 79 (70%) were related to system management, 8 (10%) were related to sustainability, and 16 (20%) were related to both system management and sustainability. According to Donabedian domains, 43 of 79 (54%) were structure measures, 25 (32%) were process measures, and 11 (14%) were outcome measures.

DISCUSSION

Quality measures addressing orthopaedic surgery outreach trips are lacking in quantity and breadth, limiting the ability to assess and improve the safety and quality of care provided. The candidate quality measures identified disproportionately focus on systems management and structures, with few related to sustainability and few addressing outcomes. Patients receiving care on outreach trips would benefit from the implementation of the measures identified in this review and from the development of quality measures that capture all domains of care and emphasize outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Quality Metrics in Hand Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 placed an emphasis on measuring the quality of care. However, the issue of how best to measure quality remains in question. Although some surgical specialties frequently rely on quality measures such as the mortality rate, measuring quality in hand surgery necessitates the use of metrics beyond this traditional scope. A review was performed of the potential quality metrics used in the hand surgery literature published after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, to identify current trends in quality measurement and guide efforts to improve the quality of care in hand surgery.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify original research articles within hand surgery to assess how care is being measured. Data extracted from the articles included study characteristics, quality metrics, and the domain(s) of quality.

RESULTS

A total of 7,308 articles were identified, and 63 prospective and retrospective articles were included in the analysis. The most common quality measure reported in the hand surgery literature was an outcome measure (100%) and the least common was a structure measure (30.2%). The most common metrics were pain (44.4%) and patient-reported measures (41.3%). Effectiveness (42.9%) was the most frequently assessed domain of quality, whereas efficiency (3.2%) was the least studied.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified quality measures used in contemporary hand surgery literature and found a substantial variation in the representation of quality metrics. Structure and process measures can be leveraged to provide a more holistic assessment of the quality of care in hand surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although outcome measurements are critical to understanding effectiveness, structure and process measures should be considered and reported as necessary, because these metrics may influence treatment outcomes and the development of quality measures.

[Definition of the quality of hand surgery]

The quality of treatment within the total concept of the healthcare system is subject to multifactorial influences. With the intention to improve the quality of hand surgery the German Society for Hand Surgery (DGH) has initiated a number of projects. These include the S3 guidelines codeveloped by the DGH, the hand trauma register of the DGH, the definition of criteria for hand surgical procedures to be performed in an outpatient setting within the framework of a consensus recommendation as well as participation in a large epidemiological study with the special documentation of pathological alterations of the hand to determine the prevalences (study of health in Pomerania, SHIP); however, within these projects the quality of treatment itself is not assessed. In the attempt to document the quality, the currently available quality indicators in hand surgery probably only evaluate the aspects really relevant for the patients to a limited extent. Therefore, the DGH participated at an early stage in the development of assessments within the international study named by the WHO as a lighthouse project. These developed and validated assessments are intended to include all aspects of the results including the individual patient view in order to precisely relate the quality of treatment to an exactly defined pattern of hand injury. The use of these assessments should permanently enable a prediction of outcome quality for each individual patient. All these projects require the largest involvement possible to collect as much data as possible. With this intention the DGH further coordinates and develops these projects within the committees of the extended executive board and attempts to motivate as many surgeons as possible to participate.

Defining Quality in Hand Surgery From the Patient's Perspective: A Qualitative Analysis

PURPOSE

Quality measures are used to evaluate health care delivery. They are traditionally developed from the physician and health system viewpoint. This approach can lead to quality measures that promote care that may be misaligned with patient values and preferences. We completed an exploratory, qualitative study to identify how patients with hand problems define high-quality care. Our purpose was to develop a better understanding of the surgery and recovery experience of hand surgery patients, specifically focusing on knowledge gaps, experience, and the surgical process.

METHODS

A steering committee (n = 10) of patients who had previously undergone hand surgery reviewed and revised an open-ended survey. Ninety-nine patients who had undergone hand surgery at 2 tertiary care institutions completed the open-ended, structured questionnaire during their 6- to 8-week postoperative clinic visit. Two reviewers completed a thematic analysis to generate subcodes and codes to identify themes in high-quality care from the patient's perspective.

RESULTS

We identified 4 themes of high-quality care: (1) Being prepared and informed for the process of surgery, (2) Regaining hand function without pain or complication, (3) Patients and caregivers negotiating the physical and psychological challenges of recovery, and (4) Financial and logistical burdens of undergoing hand surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple areas that patients identify as representing high-quality care are not reflected in current quality measures for hand surgery. The patient-derived themes of high-quality care can inform future patient-centered quality measure development.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Efforts to improve health care delivery may have the greatest impact by addressing areas of care that are most valued by patients. Such areas include patient education, system navigation, the recovery process, and cost.

The Teleology of the Thumb: On Purpose and Design

The Andrew J. Weiland Medal is presented by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand to a midcareer researcher dedicated to advancing patient care in the field of hand surgery. The Weiland Medal for 2017 was presented to the author at the annual meeting of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. The purpose of this article is to present current evidence on how biomechanics and morphology influence the pathophysiology of thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis.

Akelman E, Ruch DS, Richard MJ, Ladd A, Got C, Blazar P, Yao J, Kakar S, Harris AH, Ring D. Candidate Quality Measures for Hand Surgery

PURPOSE

Quality measures are tools used by physicians, health care systems, and payers to evaluate performance, monitor the outcomes of interventions, and inform quality improvement efforts. A paucity of quality measures exist that address hand surgery care. We completed a RAND/UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) Delphi Appropriateness process with the goal of developing and evaluating candidate hand surgery quality measures to be used for national quality measure development efforts.

METHODS

A consortium of 9 academic upper limb surgeons completed a RAND/UCLA Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility of 44 candidate quality measures. These addressed hand problems the panelists felt were most appropriate for quality measure development. Panelists rated the 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 as equivocal or uncertain, and 7 to 9 as 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), the panelists were considered to be in agreement. If 3 or more of the panelists' ratings of a measure were within the 1 to 3 range and 3 or more ratings were in the 7 to 9 range, the panelists were considered to be in disagreement.

RESULTS

There was agreement on 43% (19) of the measures as important, 27% (12) as scientifically sound, 48% (21) as usable, and 59% (26) as feasible to complete. Ten measures met all 4 of these criteria and were, therefore, considered valid measurements of quality. Quality measures that were developed address outcomes (patient-reported outcomes for assessment and improvement of function) and processes of care (utilization rates of imaging, antibiotics, occupational therapy, ultrasound, and operative treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

The consortium developed 10 measures of hand surgery quality using a validated methodology. These measures merit further development.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Quality measures can be used to evaluate the quality of care provided by physicians and health systems and can inform quality and value-based reimbursement models.