TY - JOUR
T1 - The American Society of Breast Surgeons and Quality Payment Programs
T2 - Ranking, Defining, and Benchmarking More Than 1 Million Patient Quality Measure Encounters
AU - Landercasper, Jeffrey
AU - Bailey, Lisa
AU - Buras, Robert
AU - Clifford, Ed
AU - Degnim, Amy C.
AU - Thanasoulis, Leila
AU - Fayanju, Oluwadamilola M.
AU - Tjoe, Judy A.
AU - Rao, Roshni
N1 - Funding Information:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT We thank Sharon Grutman for ASBrS Patient Safety and Quality Committee support, Mena Jalali for Mastery Workgroup support, Mastery Workgroup members (Linda Smith, Kathryn Wagner, Eric Brown, Regina Hampton, Thomas Kearney, Alison Laidley, and Jason Wilson) for QM vetting, Margaret and Ben Schlosnagle for quality measure programming support, Choua Vang for assistance in manuscript preparation, and the Gun-dersen Medical Foundation and the Norma J. Vinger Center for Breast Care for financial support. We especially thank Eric and Thomas Whitacre for Mastery program development.
Funding Information:
We thank Sharon Grutman for ASBrS Patient Safety and Quality Committee support, Mena Jalali for Mastery Workgroup support, Mastery Workgroup members (Linda Smith, Kathryn Wagner, Eric Brown, Regina Hampton, Thomas Kearney, Alison Laidley, and Jason Wilson) for QM vetting, Margaret and Ben Schlosnagle for quality measure programming support, Choua Vang for assistance in manuscript preparation, and the Gundersen Medical Foundation and the Norma J. Vinger Center for Breast Care for financial support. We especially thank Eric and Thomas Whitacre for Mastery program development. No conflicts of interest to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, The Author(s).
PY - 2017/10/1
Y1 - 2017/10/1
N2 - Background: To identify and remediate gaps in the quality of surgical care, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) developed surgeon-specific quality measures (QMs), built a patient registry, and nominated itself to become a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR), thereby linking surgical performance to potential reimbursement and public reporting. This report provides a summary of the program development. Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, more than 100 measures of care quality were ranked. In compliance with CMS rules, selected QMs were specified with inclusion, exclusion, and exception criteria, then incorporated into an electronic patient registry. After surgeons entered QM data into the registry, the ASBrS provided real-time peer performance comparisons. Results: After ranking, 9 of 144 measures of quality were chosen, submitted, and subsequently accepted by CMS as a QCDR in 2014. The measures selected were diagnosis of cancer by needle biopsy, surgical-site infection, mastectomy reoperation rate, and appropriateness of specimen imaging, intraoperative specimen orientation, sentinel node use, hereditary assessment, antibiotic choice, and antibiotic duration. More than 1 million patient-measure encounters were captured from 2010 to 2015. Benchmarking functionality with peer performance comparison was successful. In 2016, the ASBrS provided public transparency on its website for the 2015 performance reported by our surgeon participants. Conclusions: In an effort to improve quality of care and to participate in CMS quality payment programs, the ASBrS defined QMs, tracked compliance, provided benchmarking, and reported breast-specific QMs to the public.
AB - Background: To identify and remediate gaps in the quality of surgical care, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) developed surgeon-specific quality measures (QMs), built a patient registry, and nominated itself to become a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR), thereby linking surgical performance to potential reimbursement and public reporting. This report provides a summary of the program development. Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, more than 100 measures of care quality were ranked. In compliance with CMS rules, selected QMs were specified with inclusion, exclusion, and exception criteria, then incorporated into an electronic patient registry. After surgeons entered QM data into the registry, the ASBrS provided real-time peer performance comparisons. Results: After ranking, 9 of 144 measures of quality were chosen, submitted, and subsequently accepted by CMS as a QCDR in 2014. The measures selected were diagnosis of cancer by needle biopsy, surgical-site infection, mastectomy reoperation rate, and appropriateness of specimen imaging, intraoperative specimen orientation, sentinel node use, hereditary assessment, antibiotic choice, and antibiotic duration. More than 1 million patient-measure encounters were captured from 2010 to 2015. Benchmarking functionality with peer performance comparison was successful. In 2016, the ASBrS provided public transparency on its website for the 2015 performance reported by our surgeon participants. Conclusions: In an effort to improve quality of care and to participate in CMS quality payment programs, the ASBrS defined QMs, tracked compliance, provided benchmarking, and reported breast-specific QMs to the public.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026532445&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026532445&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1245/s10434-017-5940-1
DO - 10.1245/s10434-017-5940-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 28766206
AN - SCOPUS:85026532445
SN - 1068-9265
VL - 24
SP - 3093
EP - 3106
JO - Annals of surgical oncology
JF - Annals of surgical oncology
IS - 10
ER -