Impact of Quality Assessment on Clinical Practice, Kaiser Permanente

  • Kern H. GuppyEmail author
  • Jessica Harris
  • Johannes A. Bernbeck
  • Harsimran S. Brara


Quality assessment is an important way to measure care and to effect change. The methods used vary from hospital to hospital and from small group practices to large healthcare practices like Kaiser Permanente (KP). Kaiser Permanente is an integrated healthcare delivery system that provides inpatient and outpatient care and is currently the largest managed care organization in the United States covering over 11.8 million members in eight states and the District of Columbia. With the introduction of the electronic health record (EHR) system in 2006, KP has been able to leverage the data collected to develop unique methods for assessing the quality of our clinical practices. For spinal care, KP has developed the KP spine registry which collects data on patient safety, spinal implant performance, and clinical outcomes. Added information on cost-effectiveness adds value to our quality measures. The most critical components after determining quality, however, is to implement a dynamic feedback mechanism in which changes in clinical practices can occur and can be shared throughout the entire organization. This chapter explores the different methods used by Kaiser Permanente to assess the quality of our spine care and implement changes in our clinical practices.


Risk adjustment Quality reporting Kaiser Permanente Spine registry Electronic health record Dynamic feedback Risks calculators Quality control Chances in clinical practice Research Spinal implant surveillance 


  1. 1.
    Debly T, Stewart J. The story of Dr. Sidney R. Garfield: the visionary who turned sick care into health care. Oakland: The Permanente Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paxton EW, Inacio CS, Khatod M, Yue EJ, Namba RS. Kaiser Permanente national total joint replacement registry: aligning operations with information technology. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2646–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide [monograph on the Internet]. (Prepared by Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc dba Outcome] under Contract No. HHSA29020050035ITO1.) AHRQ Publication No. 07-EHC001-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007 Apr [cited 2012 May 8]. Available from:
  4. 4.
    Paxton EW, Inacio MC, Kiley ML. The Kaiser Permanente implant registries: effect on patient safety, quality improvement, cost effectiveness, and research opportunities. Perm J. 2012;16(2):36–44.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paxton EW, Kiley ML, Love R, Barber TC, Funahashi TT, Inacio MC. Kaiser Permanente implant registries benefit patient safety, quality improvement, cost-effectiveness. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(6):246–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guppy K, Paxton L, Harris J, Alvarez J, Bernbeck J. Does bone morphogenetic protein change the operative nonunion rates in spine fusions? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;15:1831–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boden SD, Zdeblick TA, Sandhu HS, et al. The use of rhBMP-2 in interbody fusion cages. Definitive evidence of osteoinduction in humans: a preliminary report. Spine. 2000;25:376–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Dickman CA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2 with tapered interbody cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15:337–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guppy KH, Harris J, Chen J, Paxton EW, Alvarez J, Bernbeck J. Reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions in posterior cervical (subaxial) fusions with and without bone morphogenetic protein in a cohort of 1158 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24:556–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guppy KH, Harris J, Chen J, Paxton EW, Bernbeck JA. Reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions in posterior cervicothoracic fusions with and without bone morphogenetic protein in a cohort of 450 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25:309–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bains R, Mitsunaga L, Kardile M, Chen Y, Guppy K, Harris J, Paxton E. Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP-2) usage and cancer correlation: an analysis of 10,416 spine fusion patients from a multi-center spine registry. J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Sep;43:214–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guppy KH, Harris J, Paxton LW, Alvarez JL, Bernbeck JA. Reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions in anterior cervical fusions from a national spine registry. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1632–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akins PT, Harris J, Alvarez JL, Chen Y, Paxton EW, Bernbeck J, Guppy KH. Risk factors associated with 30-day readmissions after instrumented spine surgery in 14,939 patients: 30-day readmissions after instrumented spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(13):1022–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flippin M, Harris J, Paxton EW, Prentice HA, Fithian DC, Ward SR, Gombatto SP. Effect of body mass index on patient outcomes of surgical intervention for the lumbar spine. J Spine Surg. 2017;3(3):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bains RS, Kardile M, Mitsunaga L, Chen Y, Harris J, Paxton E, Majid K. Does chronic kidney disease affect the mortality rate in patients undergoing spine surgery? J Clin Neurosci. 2017;43:208–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khatod M, et al. Pulmonary embolism prophylaxis in more than 30,000 total knee arthroplasty patients: is there a best choice? J Arthroplast. 2012;27(2):167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Namba RS, Inacio MC, Paxton EW. Risk factors associated with surgical site infection in 30,491 primary total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(10):1330–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khatod M, et al. Prophylaxis against pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(19):1767–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    United States. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Home Medical Device Safety Communications, Public Health Notifications (Medical Devices) – FDA public health notification: life-threatening complications associated with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein in cervical spine fusion. Silver Spring: 2008.
  20. 20.
    Ohno T. Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. New York: Productivity Press; 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bendell T. A review and comparison of Six Sigma and the Lean organizations. TQM Mag. 2006;18(3):255Y262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kern H. Guppy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica Harris
    • 2
  • Johannes A. Bernbeck
    • 3
  • Harsimran S. Brara
    • 4
  1. 1.Neurosurgery, The Kaiser Permanente Medical GroupSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Surgical Outcomes and Analysis, Southern California Permanente Medical GroupSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Orthopedics-Spine, Southern California Permanente Medical GroupDowneyUSA
  4. 4.Neurosurgery, Southern California Permanente Medical GroupLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations