Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aligning Healthcare Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality Spine Care

  • 764 Accesses

Abstract

Aligning healthcare stakeholders requires a collaborative relationship between the patient, physician, medical center/hospital, and insurer. By assessing the level of cooperation between each stakeholder and making the health status of the patient the primary focus, the system’s ability to work at its maximal potential can be realized. To achieve the best possible outcome for the patient, quality metrics and practice standards must be put into place to guide and assess treatment efficacy and quality. Safety and quality metrics such as patient- and physician-reported outcomes, perioperative readmission and infection rates, and reported adverse events allow for continued iterative improvement of the healthcare system. The implementation of a navigation process for surgical patients to assist in cost-effective point of care has been shown to be useful in decreasing the cost of care while maintaining quality. Through the analysis of all pertinent data points, gaps in the system between the patient, provider, and insurer can be identified and targeted for overall improvement in aligning healthcare systems and therefore healthcare delivery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ACO:

Accountable Care Organization

CIN:

Clinical Integrated Networks

CMS:

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CVA:

Cerebrovascular accident

DVT:

Deep venous thrombosis

MACRA:

Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015

MIPS:

Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

NDI:

Neck Disability Index

ODI:

Oswestry Disability Index

PCMH:

Patient-Centered Medical Homes

PCSP:

Patient-Centered Specialty Practices

PE:

Pulmonary embolism

SF12:

12-item Short Form Health Survey

SSI:

Surgical site infection

VAS:

Visual analog scale

References

  1. Molenaar S, Sprangers MA, Postma-Schuit FC, Rutgers EJ, Noorlander J, Hendriks J, et al. Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1):112–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Finset A. Patient education and counseling in a changing era of health care. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(1):2–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ullrich PF Jr, Vaccaro AR. Patient education on the internet: opportunities and pitfalls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(7):E185–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Turner JA, Comstock BA, Hollingworth W, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA. 2008;299(6):656–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust. 1995;163(9):458–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhasale AL, Miller GC, Reid SE, Britt HC. Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident-monitoring study. Med J Aust. 1998;169(2):73–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomson S, Schang L, Chernew ME. Value-based cost sharing in the United States and elsewhere can increase patients’ use of high-value goods and services. Health affairs (Project Hope). 2013;32(4):704–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ray JC, Kusumoto F. The transition to value-based care. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2016;47(1):61–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Conrad DA. The theory of value-based payment incentives and their application to health care. Health Serv Res. 2015;50(Suppl 2):2057–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brunt CS, Jensen GA. Medicare part B reimbursement and the perceived quality of physician care. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2010;10(2):149–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng EM, Sanders AE, Cohen AB, Bever CT Jr. Quality measurement: It’s here to stay. Neurol Clin Pract. 2014;4(5):441–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Casalino LP. The Medicare access and CHIP reauthorization act and the corporate transformation of American medicine. Health Aff (Project Hope). 2017;36(5):865–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sharma K, Metzler I, Chen S, Mayer JE Jr, Meara J. Public reporting of healthcare data: a new frontier in quality improvement. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2012;97(6):6–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marshall MSP, Brook R, Leatherman S. Dying to know: public release of information about quality of health care. London: Nuffield Trust; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  15. McMullen L, Banman T, DeGroot JM, Scott S, Srdanovic D, Mackey H. Providing novice navigators with a GPS for role development: oncology nurse navigator competency project. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2016;20(1):33–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kocher RP, Adashi EY. Hospital readmissions and the affordable care act: paying for coordinated quality care. JAMA. 2011;306(16):1794–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Quality Measures. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/QualityMeasures/

  19. Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T. The 36-item short form. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(2):126–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL. Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(2):99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Westert GP, Lagoe RJ, Keskimaki I, Leyland A, Murphy M. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). An international study of hospital readmissions and related utilization in Europe and the USA, 2002;61(3):269–78.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson GF, Steinberg EP. Hospital readmissions in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 1984;311(21):1349–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Mendoza-Lattes S. Causes and risk factors for 30-day unplanned readmissions after lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(9):761–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sherrod BA, Johnston JM, Rocque BG. Risk factors for unplanned readmission within 30 days after pediatric neurosurgery: a nationwide analysis of 9799 procedures from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;18(3):350–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Purger DA, Pendharkar AV, Ho AL, Sussman ES, Yang L, Desai M, et al. Outpatient vs inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a population-level analysis of outcomes and cost. Neurosurgery. 2018;84(4):454–64.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Buerba RA, Fu MC, Grauer JN. Anterior and posterior cervical fusion in patients with high body mass index are not associated with greater complications. Spine J. 2014;14(8):1643–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim BD, Smith TR, Lim S, Cybulski GR, Kim JYS. Predictors of unplanned readmission in patients undergoing lumbar decompression: multi-institutional analysis of 7016 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):606–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nandyala SV, Marquez-Lara A, Park DK, Hassanzadeh H, Sankaranarayanan S, Noureldin M, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of postoperative airway management after cervical spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(9):E557–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schoenfeld AJ, Carey PA, Cleveland AW 3rd, Bader JO, Bono CM. Patient factors, comorbidities, and surgical characteristics that increase mortality and complication risk after spinal arthrodesis: a prognostic study based on 5,887 patients. Spine J. 2013;13(10):1171–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Willson MC, Ross JS. Postoperative spine complications. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2014;24(2):305–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Corniola MV, Stienen MN, Tessitore E, Schaller K, Gautschi OP. Minimally invasive spine surgery: past and present. Rev Med Suisse. 2015;11(495):2186–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Paradigm changes in spine surgery: evolution of minimally invasive techniques. Nat Rev Neurol. 2012;8(8):443–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gruskay J, Smith J, Kepler CK, Radcliff K, Harrop J, Albert T, et al. The seasonality of postoperative infection in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(1):57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Glotzbecker MP, Riedel MD, Vitale MG, Matsumoto H, Roye DP, Erickson M, et al. What’s the evidence? Systematic literature review of risk factors and preventive strategies for surgical site infection following pediatric spine surgery. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013;33(5):479–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuhns BD, Lubelski D, Alvin MD, Taub JS, McGirt MJ, Benzel EC, et al. Cost and quality of life outcome analysis of postoperative infections after subaxial dorsal cervical fusions. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(4):381–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yeramaneni S, Robinson C, Hostin R. Impact of spine surgery complications on costs associated with management of adult spinal deformity. Curr Rev Muscoskelet Med. 2016;9(3):327–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bernatz JT, Anderson PA. Thirty-day readmission rates in spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(4):E7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson PA, Savage JW, Vaccaro AR, Radcliff K, Arnold PM, Lawrence BD, et al. Prevention of surgical site infection in spine surgery. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3S):S114–S23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Medicare Program. Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model (APM) Incentive Under the Physician Fee Schedule, and Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment Models. Final rule with comment period. Fed Regist. 2016;81(214):77008–831.

    Google Scholar 

  41. NASS. Guide to Navigating CMS Quality Initatives and Avoiding Penalties for CY 2016. National American Spine Society; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  42. McGirt MJ, Bydon M, Archer KR, Devin CJ, Chotai S, Parker SL, et al. An analysis from the quality outcomes database, Part 1. Disability, quality of life, and pain outcomes following lumbar spine surgery:predicting likely individual patient outcomes for shared decision-making. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(4):357–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Gabriel S. Makar, Michael Gutman, Mayan Lendner, David A. Janiec, Christina Vannello, Michael E. West & Alexander R. Vaccaro

Authors
  1. Gabriel S. Makar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Gutman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mayan Lendner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David A. Janiec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christina Vannello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael E. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexander R. Vaccaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander R. Vaccaro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    John Ratliff

  2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Todd J. Albert

  3. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Joseph Cheng

  4. Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, NJ, USA

    Jack Knightly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Makar, G.S. et al. (2019). Aligning Healthcare Systems. In: Ratliff, J., Albert, T., Cheng, J., Knightly, J. (eds) Quality Spine Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97989-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97990-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation