Quality indicators in cranial neurosurgery: current insights and critical evaluation - a systematic review.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Stephanie Schipmann, Michael Schwake, Terje Sundstrøm, Markus Holling, Walter Stummer
{"title":"Quality indicators in cranial neurosurgery: current insights and critical evaluation - a systematic review.","authors":"Stephanie Schipmann, Michael Schwake, Terje Sundstrøm, Markus Holling, Walter Stummer","doi":"10.1007/s10143-024-03066-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent decades, there has been increasing interest in measuring the quality of care across all medical fields, including neurosurgery. This interest aims not only to optimize care but also to reduce healthcare costs. For this purpose, different quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines aiming at identifying studies that critically evaluate QIs applied in cranial neurosurgery. A total of 34 studies, suggesting 22 indicators, were identified. The most discussed indicator was the 30-day readmission rate, followed by the 30-day reoperation rate. The majority of QIs are influenced by baseline and underlying patient characteristics, reflecting the severity of the patient`s underlying disease, rather than adherence to best available evidence of treatment. Therefore, it is crucial to implement adequate risk adjustment strategies when applying QIs to compensate for differences in patient complexity and to ensure that departments that are treating high-risk patients do not have worse results. The review revealed several limitations of the currently used quality indicators. Most suggested indicators are attractive from a payer point of view, easy to measure and therefore convenient for reimbursement purposes. However, from a clinician's point of view, most indicators were considered poor performance markers as they do not correlate with meaningful outcome and do not reflect treatment quality. In addition, there is a lack of disease- and neurosurgery specific indicators. This highlights the need for clinicians to actively participate in developing more clinically relevant QIs tailored to neurosurgical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"815"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-024-03066-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent decades, there has been increasing interest in measuring the quality of care across all medical fields, including neurosurgery. This interest aims not only to optimize care but also to reduce healthcare costs. For this purpose, different quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines aiming at identifying studies that critically evaluate QIs applied in cranial neurosurgery. A total of 34 studies, suggesting 22 indicators, were identified. The most discussed indicator was the 30-day readmission rate, followed by the 30-day reoperation rate. The majority of QIs are influenced by baseline and underlying patient characteristics, reflecting the severity of the patient`s underlying disease, rather than adherence to best available evidence of treatment. Therefore, it is crucial to implement adequate risk adjustment strategies when applying QIs to compensate for differences in patient complexity and to ensure that departments that are treating high-risk patients do not have worse results. The review revealed several limitations of the currently used quality indicators. Most suggested indicators are attractive from a payer point of view, easy to measure and therefore convenient for reimbursement purposes. However, from a clinician's point of view, most indicators were considered poor performance markers as they do not correlate with meaningful outcome and do not reflect treatment quality. In addition, there is a lack of disease- and neurosurgery specific indicators. This highlights the need for clinicians to actively participate in developing more clinically relevant QIs tailored to neurosurgical practice.

颅神经外科的质量指标:当前见解和关键评估--系统综述。
近几十年来,人们对衡量包括神经外科在内的所有医疗领域的医疗质量越来越感兴趣。这种兴趣不仅旨在优化医疗服务,还旨在降低医疗成本。为此,人们制定了不同的质量指标(QIs)。我们根据 PRISMA 指南进行了一项系统性综述,旨在确定对颅脑神经外科应用的 QIs 进行严格评估的研究。共发现了 34 项研究,提出了 22 项指标。讨论最多的指标是 30 天再入院率,其次是 30 天再手术率。大多数质量指标受基线和潜在患者特征的影响,反映了患者潜在疾病的严重程度,而不是对现有最佳治疗证据的遵循情况。因此,在应用质量指标时,必须实施适当的风险调整策略,以弥补患者复杂性的差异,并确保治疗高风险患者的科室不会获得更差的结果。审查显示,目前使用的质量指标存在一些局限性。从支付方的角度来看,大多数建议指标都很有吸引力,易于衡量,因此便于报销。然而,从临床医生的角度来看,大多数指标被认为是不佳的绩效标记,因为它们与有意义的结果不相关,也不能反映治疗质量。此外,还缺乏针对疾病和神经外科的指标。这凸显了临床医生积极参与制定更多适合神经外科临床实践的临床相关 QIs 的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信