4.6 Article

Quality Programs in Neurosurgery: The Memorial Hermann/University of Texas Experience

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 80, Issue 4, Pages S65-S74

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyw158

Keywords

Cost reduction; Length of stay; Metrics; Neurosurgery; Outcomes; Quality improvement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The importance of outcome measures is steadily increasing due to the rise of pay for performance and the advent of population health. In 2007, a quality initiative was started due to poor performance on rankings such as the University Health Consortium (UHC) report card. Inherent to all such efforts are common challenges: how to engage the providers; how to gather and ensure the accuracy of the data; how to attribute results to individuals; how to ensure permanent improvements. After analysis, a strategy was developed that included an initial focus on 3 metrics (mortality, infection rates, and complications), leadership from practicing neurosurgeons, protocol development and adherence, and subspecialization. In addition, it was decided that the metrics would initially apply to attending physicians only, but that the entire team would need to be involved. Once the fundamental elements were established, the process could be extended to other measures and providers. To support this effort, special information system tools were developed and a support team formed. As the program matured, measured outcomes improved and more metrics were added (to a current total of 48). For example, UHC mortality ratios (observed over expected) decreased by 75%. Infection rates decreased 80%. The program now involves all trainee physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and other staff. This paper describes the design, implementation, and results of this effort, and provides a practical guide that may be useful to other groups undertaking similar initiatives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available