Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Early Results from a Novel Quality Outcomes Program: The American Society of Breast Surgeons’ Mastery of Breast Surgery

  • American Society of Breast Surgeons
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In 2008, the American Society for Breast Surgeons launched its Mastery in Breast Surgery Pilot Program to demonstrate feasibility of a Web-based tool for breast surgeons to document and monitor quality outcomes.

Methods

Participating surgeons report performance of three quality measures for breast procedures: Was a needle biopsy performed to evaluate the breast lesion before the procedure? Was the surgical specimen oriented? For nonpalpable lesions localized with image guidance, was there intraoperative confirmation of removal? Data are collected through the American Society for Breast Surgeons’ Web-based software using a secure server and encrypted identification numbers. Surgeon demographic/practice characteristic data were collected, and logistic regression models were used to identify factors that affected quality measures.

Results

From October 2008 to December 2009, a total of 696 surgeons entered data for 28,798 breast procedures. Participants were diverse in years in practice, geographic location, practice setting and type, and proportion of practice made up of breast procedures. Delivery of “optimal care” (defined as delivery of all quality measures for which there was no valid clinical reason for nonperformance) was high for all surgeon demographic/practice characteristics, ranging from 81% to 94%. Statistically significant differences in delivery of quality measures were observed within all physician demographic/practice characteristic variables, but many absolute differences were small.

Conclusions

The high level of participation and volume of breast procedures for which quality measure data was entered demonstrate this is a feasible means of collecting quality performance data. Future development will include identifying/developing additional quality measures and establishing evidence-based benchmarks for care on the basis of data collected.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Breast cancer statistics. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/index.htm. Accessed 25 Mar 2010.

  2. Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2006. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Quality Forum. NQF-endorsed standards. Available at: http://qualityforum.org/Measures_List.aspx#k=breast%2520cancer&e=1&st=&sd=&s=&P=1. Accessed 25 Mar 2010.

  4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2010 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) measures list. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI/Downloads/2010_PQRI_MeasuresList_111309.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2010.

  5. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Mastery of breast surgery program, version 1.5. Revised 13 Jan 2008.

  6. Laidley AL, Whitacre EB, Snider HC, Willey SC. Meeting the challenge—a surgeon-centered quality program: the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery of Breast Surgery pilot program. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2010;(January):23–30.

  7. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Mastery of breast surgery pilot program background and history. Available at: http://www.breastsurgeons.org/mastery/background.php. Accessed 25 Mar 2010.

  8. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:586–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Policy statement on routine orientation of excised breast specimens. June 6, 2005. Available at: https://www.netforumondemand.com/eWeb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=asbd&WebCode=ArticleDetail&faq_key=16e23540-c335-4eb9-865c-a594a34ddf57. Accessed 28 Aug 2009.

  10. Fleming FJ, Hill AD, McDermott EW, et al. Intraoperative margin assessment and re-excision rate in breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:233–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon JM, Ravi Sekar O, Walsh J, Paterson D, Anderson TJ. Specimen-orientated radiography helps define excision margins of malignant lesions detected by breast screening. Br J Surg. 1993;80:1001–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chagpar A, Yen T, Sahin A, et al. Intraoperative margin assessment reduces reexcision rates in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2003;186:371–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Mastery of Breast Surgery: frequently asked questions. Available at: http://www.breastsurgeons.org/mastery/mastery_faq.php. Accessed 25 Mar 2010.

  14. Ritchie WP Jr, Rhodes RS, Biester TW. Work loads and practice patterns of general surgeons in the United States, 1995–1997: a report from the American Board of Surgery. Ann Surg. 1999;230:533–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jonasson O, Kwakawa F. Retirement age and the work force in general surgery. Ann Surg. 1996;224:574–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bendorf DC, Helmer SD, Osland JS, Tenofsky PL. Income, productivity, and satisfaction of breast surgeons. Am J Surg. 2010;199:405–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke-Pearson EM, Jacobson AF, Boolbol SK, et al. Quality assurance initiative at one institution for minimally invasive breast biopsy as the initial diagnostic technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:75–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Silverstein M. Where’s the outrage? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:78–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maddux FW, Dickinson TA, Rilla D, et al. Institutional variability of intraoperative red blood cell utilization in coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24:403–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Panigrahi B, Roman SA, Sosa JA. Medullary thyroid cancer: are practice patterns in the United States discordant from American Thyroid Association guidelines? Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1490–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Norton PG, Dunn EV, Soberman L. What factors affect quality of care? Using the Peer Assessment Program in Ontario family practices. Can Fam Physician. 1997;43:1739–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cettomai D, Gelber AC, Christopher-Stine L. A survey of rheumatologists’ practice for prescribing pneumocystis prophylaxis. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:792–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Xirasagar S, Lin HC, Liu TC. Do group practices have lower caesarean rates than solo practice obstetric clinics? Evidence from Taiwan. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21:319–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Gareen IF. Effect of referring physician specialty and practice type on referral for image-guided breast biopsy. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2:488–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  26. New York State Department of Health. New York State Medicaid update. April 2009. Available at: http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/program/update/2009/2009-04.htm. Accessed 29 Mar 2010.

Download references

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge the contributions of Alison Laidley, MD; Eric Whitacre, MD; and Briget da Graca, MS. The Mastery of Surgeons Pilot Study was funded in part by an unrestricted educational grant by Genomic Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Baylor Medical Center at Irving, Irving, TX, USA

    Edward J. Clifford MD

  2. Baylor Health Care System Institute for Health Care Research and Improvement, Dallas, TX, USA

    Edward B. De Vol PhD

  3. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

    Barbara A. Pockaj MD

  4. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Lee G. Wilke MD

  5. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Judy C. Boughey MD

Authors
  1. Edward J. Clifford MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward B. De Vol PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara A. Pockaj MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lee G. Wilke MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Judy C. Boughey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward J. Clifford MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clifford, E.J., De Vol, E.B., Pockaj, B.A. et al. Early Results from a Novel Quality Outcomes Program: The American Society of Breast Surgeons’ Mastery of Breast Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 17 (Suppl 3), 233–241 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1263-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1263-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation