Quality Measures in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Identifying Metrics to Improve Care.

Jacob S Nasser, William H J Chung, Ryan A Gudal, Sandra V Kotsis, Adeyiza O Momoh, Kevin C Chung
Author Information
  1. Jacob S Nasser: George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, D.C.
  2. William H J Chung: Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich.
  3. Ryan A Gudal: Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich.
  4. Sandra V Kotsis: Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich.
  5. Adeyiza O Momoh: Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich.
  6. Kevin C Chung: Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Specific measures tailored to the properties of individual procedures will ensure the appropriate evaluation of quality. Because postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is becoming increasingly common, a review of the literature is timely to identify potential breast reconstruction-specific measures that can be applied by institutions and national healthcare organizations to improve quality.
METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for studies examining the quality of care for patients undergoing PMBR. Data extracted from the articles include basic study characteristics, the number of quality metrics, type of quality metric (defined by Donabedian model), and the domain of quality (defined by the National Academy of Medicine).
RESULTS: A total of 2,158 articles were identified in the initial search, and 440 studies were included for data extraction. The most common type of quality measure was outcome measures (91%), and the least common measure was structure measures (1%). The most common metrics were operative time (41%), hospital type (28%), and aspects of the patient-provider interactions (20%). Additionally, we found that timeliness and equity were least common among the 6 National Academy of Medicine domains.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified metrics utilized in the PMBR, some of which can be further investigated through high-level evidence studies and incorporated into policy. Because many factors influence surgical outcomes and breast reconstruction is driven by patient preferences, an inclusion of structure, process, and outcome metrics will help improve care for this patient population. Moreover, nonpunitive initiatives, specifically quality collaboratives, may provide an avenue to improve care quality without compromising patient safety.

References

  1. PLoS One. 2018 Jan 9;13(1):e0190298 [PMID: 29315325]
  2. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Apr;210(4):449-55 [PMID: 20347737]
  3. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Feb;28(1):53-8 [PMID: 26573787]
  4. Surgery. 2011 Nov;150(5):943-9 [PMID: 21875734]
  5. Adv Surg. 2010;44:251-67 [PMID: 20919525]
  6. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011 Jan;64(1):75-83 [PMID: 20570232]
  7. Transplantation. 2018 Jul;102(7):e308-e330 [PMID: 29557915]
  8. J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Apr;9(2):178-183 [PMID: 28439350]
  9. Health Serv Res. 2014 Jun;49(3):818-37 [PMID: 24417309]
  10. Urol Pract. 2014 Jul;1(2):74-78 [PMID: 37537830]
  11. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 9;361(2):109-12 [PMID: 19494209]
  12. JACC Heart Fail. 2016 Jan;4(1):21-3 [PMID: 26656141]
  13. N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 5;372(10):897-9 [PMID: 25622024]
  14. J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Apr;220(4):550-8 [PMID: 25728140]
  15. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):636-45 [PMID: 21471484]
  16. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Jan;111(1):469-80; discussion 481-2 [PMID: 12496620]
  17. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Apr;20(4):326-31 [PMID: 21339310]
  18. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Oct 10;70(15):1931-1934 [PMID: 28982507]
  19. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5325-30 [PMID: 19805680]
  20. Ann Plast Surg. 2017 Sep;79(3):320-325 [PMID: 28570449]
  21. N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 21;374(16):1543-51 [PMID: 26910198]
  22. HPB (Oxford). 2010 Sep;12(7):465-71 [PMID: 20815855]
  23. Ann Surg. 2007 Dec;246(6):1100-3 [PMID: 18043116]
  24. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Apr;214(4):709-14; discussion 714-6 [PMID: 22265639]
  25. JAMA. 1988 Sep 23-30;260(12):1743-8 [PMID: 3045356]
  26. JAMA. 2015 Jul 28;314(4):375-83 [PMID: 26219055]
  27. Cancer. 2008 Feb 1;112(3):489-94 [PMID: 18157830]
  28. J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Apr;198(4):626-32 [PMID: 15051016]
  29. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Dec;142(6):1411-1420 [PMID: 30204678]
  30. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966 Jul;44(3):Suppl:166-206 [PMID: 5338568]
  31. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Nov;142(5):1267-1274 [PMID: 30511980]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0qualitycommonmeasuresmetricsbreastPMBRimprovestudiescaretypepatientwillreconstructioncanarticlesdefinedNationalAcademyMedicineidentifiedmeasureoutcomeleaststructureBACKGROUND:Specifictailoredpropertiesindividualproceduresensureappropriateevaluationpostmastectomybecomingincreasinglyreviewliteraturetimelyidentifypotentialreconstruction-specificappliedinstitutionsnationalhealthcareorganizationsMETHODS:searchedPubMedEmbaseexaminingpatientsundergoingDataextractedincludebasicstudycharacteristicsnumbermetricDonabedianmodeldomainRESULTS:total2158initialsearch440includeddataextraction91%1%operativetime41%hospital28%aspectspatient-providerinteractions20%Additionallyfoundtimelinessequityamong6domainsCONCLUSIONS:utilizedinvestigatedhigh-levelevidenceincorporatedpolicymanyfactorsinfluencesurgicaloutcomesdrivenpreferencesinclusionprocesshelppopulationMoreovernonpunitiveinitiativesspecificallycollaborativesmayprovideavenuewithoutcompromisingsafetyQualityMeasuresPostmastectomyBreastReconstruction:IdentifyingMetricsImproveCare

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)