TY - JOUR
T1 - Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters
AU - Landercasper, Jeffrey
AU - Fayanju, Oluwadamilola M.
AU - Bailey, Lisa
AU - Berry, Tiffany S.
AU - Borgert, Andrew J.
AU - Buras, Robert
AU - Chen, Steven L.
AU - Degnim, Amy C.
AU - Froman, Joshua
AU - Gass, Jennifer
AU - Greenberg, Caprice
AU - Mautner, Starr Koslow
AU - Krontiras, Helen
AU - Ramirez, Luis D.
AU - Sowden, Michelle
AU - Wexelman, Barbara
AU - Wilke, Lee
AU - Rao, Roshni
N1 - Funding Information:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors thank Sharon Grutman for ASBrS Patient Safety and Quality Committee support, Mena Jalali for MasterySM Workgroup support, Margaret and Ben Schlosnagle for MasterySM technology support, and the Mastery Workgroup members who provide oversight and practical improvements to the Mastery patient registry (Co-Chairs Linda Smith and Kathryn Wagner; members Eric Brown, Regina Hampton, Thomas Kearney, Alison Laidley, and Jason Wilson). Also, Choua Vang for assistance in manuscript preparation and the Gundersen Medical Foundation and the Norma J. Vinger Center for Breast Care for financial and statistical support.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, The Author(s).
PY - 2018/2/1
Y1 - 2018/2/1
N2 - Background: Nine breast cancer quality measures (QM) were selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Programs (QPP) and other performance improvement programs. We report member performance. Study Design: Surgeons entered QM data into an electronic registry. For each QM, aggregate “performance met” (PM) was reported (median, range and percentiles) and benchmarks (target goals) were calculated by CMS methodology, specifically, the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ (ABC) method. Results: A total of 1,286,011 QM encounters were captured from 2011–2015. For 7 QM, first and last PM rates were as follows: (1) needle biopsy (95.8, 98.5%), (2) specimen imaging (97.9, 98.8%), (3) specimen orientation (98.5, 98.3%), (4) sentinel node use (95.1, 93.4%), (5) antibiotic selection (98.0, 99.4%), (6) antibiotic duration (99.0, 99.8%), and (7) no surgical site infection (98.8, 98.9%); all p values < 0.001 for trends. Variability and reasons for noncompliance by surgeon for each QM were identified. The CMS-calculated target goals (ABC™ benchmarks) for PM for 6 QM were 100%, suggesting that not meeting performance is a “never should occur” event. Conclusions: Surgeons self-reported a large number of specialty-specific patient-measure encounters into a registry for self-assessment and participation in QPP. Despite high levels of performance demonstrated initially in 2011 with minimal subsequent change, the ASBrS concluded “perfect” performance was not a realistic goal for QPP. Thus, after review of our normative performance data, the ASBrS recommended different benchmarks than CMS for each QM.
AB - Background: Nine breast cancer quality measures (QM) were selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Programs (QPP) and other performance improvement programs. We report member performance. Study Design: Surgeons entered QM data into an electronic registry. For each QM, aggregate “performance met” (PM) was reported (median, range and percentiles) and benchmarks (target goals) were calculated by CMS methodology, specifically, the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ (ABC) method. Results: A total of 1,286,011 QM encounters were captured from 2011–2015. For 7 QM, first and last PM rates were as follows: (1) needle biopsy (95.8, 98.5%), (2) specimen imaging (97.9, 98.8%), (3) specimen orientation (98.5, 98.3%), (4) sentinel node use (95.1, 93.4%), (5) antibiotic selection (98.0, 99.4%), (6) antibiotic duration (99.0, 99.8%), and (7) no surgical site infection (98.8, 98.9%); all p values < 0.001 for trends. Variability and reasons for noncompliance by surgeon for each QM were identified. The CMS-calculated target goals (ABC™ benchmarks) for PM for 6 QM were 100%, suggesting that not meeting performance is a “never should occur” event. Conclusions: Surgeons self-reported a large number of specialty-specific patient-measure encounters into a registry for self-assessment and participation in QPP. Despite high levels of performance demonstrated initially in 2011 with minimal subsequent change, the ASBrS concluded “perfect” performance was not a realistic goal for QPP. Thus, after review of our normative performance data, the ASBrS recommended different benchmarks than CMS for each QM.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034658268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034658268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1245/s10434-017-6257-9
DO - 10.1245/s10434-017-6257-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 29168099
AN - SCOPUS:85034658268
SN - 1068-9265
VL - 25
SP - 501
EP - 511
JO - Annals of surgical oncology
JF - Annals of surgical oncology
IS - 2
ER -