Evaluating Patient-Centered Surgical Care Quality Using Patient-Reported Measures of Shared Decision-Making.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Jason B Liu, Andrea L Pusic, Larissa Kf Temple, Anoosha Moturu, Bruce L Hall, Clifford Y Ko
{"title":"Evaluating Patient-Centered Surgical Care Quality Using Patient-Reported Measures of Shared Decision-Making.","authors":"Jason B Liu, Andrea L Pusic, Larissa Kf Temple, Anoosha Moturu, Bruce L Hall, Clifford Y Ko","doi":"10.1097/XCS.0000000000001402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the importance of shared decision-making (SDM) in surgical care, evaluating it from the patient's perspective is not a performance measure (PM). We aimed (1) to determine whether levels of SDM could be distinguished among hospitals and surgeons, and (2) to understand implementation feasibility by estimating minimum response numbers per hospital and surgeon to maintain acceptable levels of statistical reliability.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Two patient-reported SDM measures were administered during the ACS NSQIP Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Demonstration Project between 2020-2023: the CollaboRATE measure and the 9-item Shared-Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). 24 candidate PMs were constructed to evaluate hospital- and surgeon-level performance. Mixed models estimated statistical reliability for each PM and projected minimum sample sizes required to achieve reliabilities of at least 0.70 and 0.40. Effects of risk adjustment, nonresponse bias, and ambulatory procedure classification were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among hospitals, the highest median reliability was achieved with CollaboRATE after correcting for nonresponse bias and among the subgroup of ambulatory procedures at 0.81 (IQR 0.72-0.85) and 0.81 (0.73-0.85), respectively. Projected minimum sample sizes required to achieve acceptable reliability were the lowest at 235 and 192 responses per hospital, respectively. Among surgeons, the highest median reliability was also achieved with CollaboRATE after correcting for nonresponse bias and among the subgroup of ambulatory procedures at 0.49 (0.41-0.61) and 0.47 (0.39-0.59), respectively. Projected minimum sizes were lowest at 46 and 46 responses per surgeon, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While both CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 could distinguish patient-centered care quality, CollaboRATE identified performance differences with higher statistical reliability than the SDM-Q-9. With few responses required per surgeon, implementing CollaboRATE as a surgeon-specific PM is realistic and feasible to distinguish patient-centered SDM practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":17140,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Surgeons","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XCS.0000000000001402","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the importance of shared decision-making (SDM) in surgical care, evaluating it from the patient's perspective is not a performance measure (PM). We aimed (1) to determine whether levels of SDM could be distinguished among hospitals and surgeons, and (2) to understand implementation feasibility by estimating minimum response numbers per hospital and surgeon to maintain acceptable levels of statistical reliability.

Study design: Two patient-reported SDM measures were administered during the ACS NSQIP Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Demonstration Project between 2020-2023: the CollaboRATE measure and the 9-item Shared-Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). 24 candidate PMs were constructed to evaluate hospital- and surgeon-level performance. Mixed models estimated statistical reliability for each PM and projected minimum sample sizes required to achieve reliabilities of at least 0.70 and 0.40. Effects of risk adjustment, nonresponse bias, and ambulatory procedure classification were explored.

Results: Among hospitals, the highest median reliability was achieved with CollaboRATE after correcting for nonresponse bias and among the subgroup of ambulatory procedures at 0.81 (IQR 0.72-0.85) and 0.81 (0.73-0.85), respectively. Projected minimum sample sizes required to achieve acceptable reliability were the lowest at 235 and 192 responses per hospital, respectively. Among surgeons, the highest median reliability was also achieved with CollaboRATE after correcting for nonresponse bias and among the subgroup of ambulatory procedures at 0.49 (0.41-0.61) and 0.47 (0.39-0.59), respectively. Projected minimum sizes were lowest at 46 and 46 responses per surgeon, respectively.

Conclusion: While both CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 could distinguish patient-centered care quality, CollaboRATE identified performance differences with higher statistical reliability than the SDM-Q-9. With few responses required per surgeon, implementing CollaboRATE as a surgeon-specific PM is realistic and feasible to distinguish patient-centered SDM practices.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.80%
发文量
1515
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS) is a monthly journal publishing peer-reviewed original contributions on all aspects of surgery. These contributions include, but are not limited to, original clinical studies, review articles, and experimental investigations with clear clinical relevance. In general, case reports are not considered for publication. As the official scientific journal of the American College of Surgeons, JACS has the goal of providing its readership the highest quality rapid retrieval of information relevant to surgeons.
×
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