Key result
Quality improvement programs reduce surgical morbidity and mortality but current measures require refinement.
Why the study?
Quality improvement programs have improved morbidity and mortality but require refinement to better assess specialty surgeries and address potential flaws in quality measures.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Discusses the current state, challenges, and future directions of surgical quality improvement programs in the United States.
The need to practice cost efficient medicine and provide it in the safest way possible is paving the way for quality improvement (QI) programs to take off. American College of Surgeons National Surgical QI Project and Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program are some of the leading examples and have provided useful data to evaluate our systems and decrease morbidity and mortality. With proven outcomes driving morbidity and mortality rates down, we have to wonder how to refine these measures to make them more relevant to specialty surgeries such as colorectal. On the contrary, participation in programs like these has placed extended requirements on hospitals and physicians. In addition, some of the quality measures may be inaccurately identifying low and high performing hospitals and individuals because of inherent flaws in the database. This could potentially be in conflict with the mission of these programs. What will be presented are some alternatives and different directions QI is moving toward.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fia Yi (2014) conducted a review in Quality improvement in surgery. Quality improvement programs was evaluated. Quality improvement programs decrease surgical morbidity and mortality, though current measures require refinement to address database flaws and relevance to specialty surgeries.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: