Abstract
Surgical quality profiling is the art and science of measuring surgical quality to provide performance assessments for surgical providers to guide quality improvement. This chapter serves as a nontechnical introduction to the field of surgical quality profiling in the context of metabolic and bariatric surgery and is primarily intended for clinicians, administrators, and other quality improvement stakeholders as a guide to assist in understanding and interpreting risk and reliability-adjusted surgical quality performance assessments. The development, meaning, and interpretation of surgical quality measures and performance assessments are discussed, with a focus on the outcomes, techniques, and methodologies currently utilized by the Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). Particular emphasis is given to motivating the need for risk and reliability adjustments in the construction of fair assessments of surgical quality. From the observation of raw, unadjusted complication rates to the implementation of modern statistical models that incorporate risk and reliability adjustment, the evolution of surgical quality profiling methodology is also examined in detail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Codman EA. A study in hospital efficiency: as demonstrated by the case report of the first five years of a private hospital. Boston: Thomas Todd Co; 1918. p. 9.
Steinberg SM, Popa MR, Michalek JA, et al. Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement. Surgery. 2008;144(4):662–7.
Lawson EH, Zingmond DS, Hall BL, et al. Comparison between clinical registry and medicare claims data on the classification of hospital quality of surgical care. Ann Surg. 2015;261(2):290–6.
Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/mbsaqip. Accessed Jan 2018.
Berger ER, Clements RH, Morton JM, et al. The impact of different surgical techniques on outcomes in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies: the first report from the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program (MBSAQIP). Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):464–73.
Berger ER, Huffman KM, Fraker T, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for bariatric surgery readmissions: findings from 130,007 admissions in the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program. Ann Surg. 2018;267(1):122–31.
Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg. 1998;228(4):491–507.
Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL, et al. Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. Adv Surg. 2010;44:251–67.
Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. MBSAQIP semiannual report June 1, 2014. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2014.
Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. MBSAQIP semiannual report January 31, 2018. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2018.
Liu JB, Pusic AL, Temple LK, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in surgery: listening to patients improves quality of care. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2017;102(3):19–23.
Hall BL, Huffman KM, Hamilton BH, al e. Profiling individual surgeon performance using information from a high-quality clinical registry: opportunities and limitations. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;217(2):901–13.
Hutter MM, Schirmer BD, Jone DB, et al. First report from the American College of Surgeons bariatric surgery center network: laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has morbidity and effectiveness positioned between the band and the bypass. Ann Surg. 2011;254(3):410–20.
Cohen ME, et al. Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(2):336–46.
Viera AJ. Odds ratios and risk ratios: what’s the difference and why does it matter? South Med J. 2008;101(7):730–4.
Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280(19):1690–1.
Merkow RP, Hall BL, Cohen ME, et al. Relevance of the c-statistic when evaluating risk-adjustment models in surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(5):822–30.
Livingston E, Cao J, Dimick JB. Tread carefully with stepwise regression. Arch Surg. 2010;145(11):1039–40.
Dai J, Li Z, Rocke D. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling with SAS GLIMMIX. Available at: https://www.lexjansen.com/wuss/2006/analytics/ANL-Dai.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
Box GEP, Draper NR. Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Oxford: Wiley; 1987. p. 424.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huffman, K.M. (2019). Understanding Risk and Reliability Adjustment in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgical Quality Profiling. In: Morton, J., Brethauer, S., DeMaria, E., Kahan, S., Hutter, M. (eds) Quality in Obesity Treatment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25173-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25173-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25172-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25173-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)