Testing proposed quality measures for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: feasibility, magnitude of quality gaps, and r
- PDF / 682,029 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 60 Downloads / 162 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Testing proposed quality measures for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: feasibility, magnitude of quality gaps, and reliability Alex H. S. Harris1,2* , Esther L. Meerwijk1, Qian Ding2, Amber W. Trickey2, Andrea K. Finlay1, Eric M. Schmidt1, Catherine M. Curtin1,2, Erika D. Sears3, Teryl K. Nuckols4 and Robin N. Kamal5
Abstract Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and American Society for Surgery of the Hand recently proposed three quality measures for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS): Measure 1 - Discouraging routine use of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of CTS; Measure 2 - Discouraging the use of adjunctive surgical procedures during carpal tunnel release (CTR); and Measure 3 - Discouraging the routine use of occupational and/ or physical therapy after CTR. The goal of this study were to 1) Assess the feasibility of using the specifications to calculate the measures in real-world healthcare data and identify aspects of the specifications that might be clarified or improved; 2) Determine if the measures identify important variation in treatment quality that justifies expending resources for their further development and implementation; 3) Assess the facility- and surgeon-level reliability of measures. Methods: The measures were calculated using national data from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse for three fiscal years (FY; 2016–18). Facility- and surgeon-level performance and reliability were examined. To expand the testing context, the measures were also tested using data from an academic medical center. Results: The denominator of Measure 1 was 132,049 VA patients newly diagnosed with CTS. The denominators of Measures 2 and 3 were 20,813 CTRs received by VA patients. The median facility-level performances on the three measures were 96.5, 100, and 94.7%, respectively. Of 130 VA facilities, none had < 90% performance on Measure 1. Among 111 facilities that performed CTRs, only 1 facility had < 90% performance on Measure 2. In contrast, 21 facilities (18.9%) and 333 surgeons (17.8%) had lower than 90% performance on Measure 3 (Median facility- and surgeon-level reliability for Measure 3 were very high (0.95 and 0.96 respectively). (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA, USA 2 Department of Surgery, Stanford–Surgery Policy Improvement Research and Education Center, Stanford, CA, USA Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the
Data Loading...
