Gundersen Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI, USA.
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Feb;25(2):501-511. doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6257-9. Epub 2017 Nov 22.
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.
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.
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.
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.
美国乳腺外科学会(ASBrS)为医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)质量支付计划(QPP)和其他绩效改进计划选择了 9 项乳腺癌质量措施(QM)。我们报告了成员的表现。
外科医生将 QM 数据输入电子登记册。对于每个 QM,报告了“满足绩效”(PM)的综合数据(中位数、范围和百分位数),并根据 CMS 方法计算了基准(目标),具体来说,是采用可实现的护理基准(ABC)方法。
共捕获了 2011 年至 2015 年的 1,286,011 次 QM 就诊记录。对于 7 个 QM,首次和最后一次 PM 率如下:(1) 针吸活检(95.8,98.5%);(2) 标本成像(97.9,98.8%);(3) 标本定向(98.5,98.3%);(4) 前哨淋巴结使用(95.1,93.4%);(5) 抗生素选择(98.0,99.4%);(6) 抗生素持续时间(99.0,99.8%);(7) 无手术部位感染(98.8,98.9%);所有趋势的 p 值均小于 0.001。确定了每个 QM 外科医生的变异和不合规的原因。CMS 计算的 6 个 QM 的 PM 目标(ABC™基准)为 100%,这表明不符合绩效是“绝不应该发生”的事件。
外科医生自行向登记册报告了大量特定于专业的患者测量就诊记录,以进行自我评估和参与 QPP。尽管在 2011 年最初表现出高水平的绩效,并且随后几乎没有变化,但 ASBrS 得出结论,“完美”的绩效不是 QPP 的现实目标。因此,在审查我们的规范绩效数据后,ASBrS 为每个 QM 推荐了与 CMS 不同的基准。