The present and future of quality measures and public reporting in neurosurgery

Author:

Bekelis Kimon1,McGirt Matthew J.2,Parker Scott L.3,Holland Christopher M.4,Davies Jason5,Devin Clinton J.6,Atkins Tyler2,Knightly Jack7,Groman Rachel8,Zyung Irene9,Asher Anthony L.2

Affiliation:

1. Section of Neurosurgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire;

2. Department of Neurosurgery, Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates and Neuroscience Institute, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, North Carolina;

3. Departments of Neurosurgery and

4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah;

5. Department of Neurological Surgery, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York;

6. Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee;

7. Department of Neurological Surgery, Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, New Jersey;

8. Clinical Affairs and Quality Improvement, Hart Health Strategies, Inc., Washington, DC; and

9. American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Rolling Meadows, Illinois

Abstract

Quality measurement and public reporting are intended to facilitate targeted outcome improvement, practice-based learning, shared decision making, and effective resource utilization. However, regulatory implementation has created a complex network of reporting requirements for physicians and medical practices. These include Medicare’s Physician Quality Reporting System, Electronic Health Records Meaningful Use, and Value-Based Payment Modifier programs. The common denominator of all these initiatives is that to avoid penalties, physicians must meet “generic” quality standards that, in the case of neurosurgery and many other specialties, are not pertinent to everyday clinical practice and hold specialists accountable for care decisions outside of their direct control. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently authorized alternative quality reporting mechanisms for the Physician Quality Reporting System, which allow registries to become subspecialty-reporting mechanisms under the Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) program. These programs further give subspecialties latitude to develop measures of health care quality that are relevant to the care provided. As such, these programs amplify the power of clinical registries by allowing more accurate assessment of practice patterns, patient experiences, and overall health care value. Neurosurgery has been at the forefront of these developments, leveraging the experience of the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database to create one of the first specialty-specific QCDRs. Recent legislative reform has continued to change this landscape and has fueled optimism that registries (including QCDRs) and other specialty-driven quality measures will be a prominent feature of federal and private sector quality improvement initiatives. These physician- and patient-driven methods will allow neurosurgery to underscore the value of interventions, contribute to the development of sustainable health care solutions, and actively participate in meaningful quality initiatives for the benefit of the patients served.

Publisher

Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)

Subject

Neurology (clinical),General Medicine,Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3