Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb;25(2):501-511.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6257-9. Epub 2017 Nov 22.

Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters

Affiliations

Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters

Jeffrey Landercasper et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Nine breast cancer quality measures (QM) were selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Programs (QPP) and other performance improvement programs. We report member performance.

Study design: Surgeons entered QM data into an electronic registry. For each QM, aggregate "performance met" (PM) was reported (median, range and percentiles) and benchmarks (target goals) were calculated by CMS methodology, specifically, the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ (ABC) method.

Results: A total of 1,286,011 QM encounters were captured from 2011-2015. For 7 QM, first and last PM rates were as follows: (1) needle biopsy (95.8, 98.5%), (2) specimen imaging (97.9, 98.8%), (3) specimen orientation (98.5, 98.3%), (4) sentinel node use (95.1, 93.4%), (5) antibiotic selection (98.0, 99.4%), (6) antibiotic duration (99.0, 99.8%), and (7) no surgical site infection (98.8, 98.9%); all p values < 0.001 for trends. Variability and reasons for noncompliance by surgeon for each QM were identified. The CMS-calculated target goals (ABC™ benchmarks) for PM for 6 QM were 100%, suggesting that not meeting performance is a "never should occur" event.

Conclusions: Surgeons self-reported a large number of specialty-specific patient-measure encounters into a registry for self-assessment and participation in QPP. Despite high levels of performance demonstrated initially in 2011 with minimal subsequent change, the ASBrS concluded "perfect" performance was not a realistic goal for QPP. Thus, after review of our normative performance data, the ASBrS recommended different benchmarks than CMS for each QM.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Histograms of individual surgeons and their performance. X-axis is individual surgeon de-identified ID numbers; Y-axis is performance rate from 50 to 100% “performance met”

References

    1. Rosenberg BL, Kellar JA, Labno A, et al. Quantifying geographic variation in health care outcomes in the United States before and after risk-adjustment. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0166762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166762. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Levine D, Linder J, Landon B. The quality of outpatient care delivered to adults in the United States, 2002 to 2013. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1778–1790. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6217. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Horwitz RI. Equity in cancer care and outcomes of treatment: a different type of cancer moonshot. JAMA. 2016;315(12):1231–1232. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.2242. - DOI - PubMed
    1. American Society of Clinical Oncology The state of cancer care in America™, 2015: a report by the American Society of Clinical Oncologists. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(2):79–113. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2015.003772. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. - PubMed