» Articles » PMID: 29168099

Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods.

van Ramshorst T, Giani A, Mazzola M, Dokmak S, Fteriche F, Esposito A Br J Surg. 2022; 110(1):76-83.

PMID: 36322465 PMC: 10364499. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac352.


Quality measurement for cardiovascular diseases and cancer in hospital value-based healthcare: a systematic review of the literature.

Abdalla R, Pavlova M, Hussein M, Groot W BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):979.

PMID: 35915449 PMC: 9341062. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08347-x.


Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic.

McEvoy M, Landercasper J, Naik H, Feldman S Gland Surg. 2019; 7(6):536-553.

PMID: 30687627 PMC: 6323258. DOI: 10.21037/gs.2018.11.03.

References
1.
Silverstein M . Where's the outrage?. J Am Coll Surg. 2009; 208(1):78-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.09.022. View

2.
Jalili M, Hejri S, Norcini J . Comparison of two methods of standard setting: the performance of the three-level Angoff method. Med Educ. 2011; 45(12):1199-208. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04073.x. View

3.
Wilke L, Ballman K, McCall L, Giuliano A, Whitworth P, Blumencranz P . Adherence to the National Quality Forum (NQF) breast cancer measures within cancer clinical trials: a review from ACOSOG Z0010. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17(8):1989-94. PMC: 2950006. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-0980-9. View

4.
Shahian D, Grover F, Prager R, Edwards F, Filardo G, OBrien S . The Society of Thoracic Surgeons voluntary public reporting initiative: the first 4 years. Ann Surg. 2015; 262(3):526-35. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001422. View

5.
van Dam P, Tomatis M, Marotti L, Heil J, Wilson R, Del Turco M . The effect of EUSOMA certification on quality of breast cancer care. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(10):1423-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.06.006. View