Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tracking Quality: Data Registries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The SAGES Manual of Quality, Outcomes and Patient Safety

  • 828 Accesses

Abstract

One method in which surgical quality can be measured is with the use of data registries, which can be accessed by users for comparative performance metrics. Several societies, such as the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons, the Americas’ Hernia Society, and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, have invested both cost (shared with institutions) and labor into data registries which can then track outcomes and be used to drive performance improvement. Risk-adjusted feedback can be critical information supplied to drive process change at the local level. Many of these registries lack patient-reported outcome measures, which would provide even more quality information to surgeons, but these are actively under development. Registries also tend to lack long-term outcome measurements, so conclusions drawn by the measured data are typically applicable in the perioperative period.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

References

  1. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA [Internet]. 1988;260(12):1743–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang V, Blackwell RH, Markossian T, Yau RM, Blanco BA, Zapf MAC, et al. Discordance between surgical care improvement project adherence and postoperative outcomes: implications for new Joint Commission standards. J Surg Res. 2017;212:205–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Altom LK, Deierhoi RJ, Grams J, Richman JS, Vick CC, Henderson WG, et al. Association between Surgical Care Improvement Program venous thromboembolism measures and postoperative events. Am J Surg. 2012;204(5):591–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kouchoukos NT, Ebert PA, Grover FL, Lindesmith GG. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on risk factors for coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg [Internet]. 1988;45(3):348–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Clark RE. It is time for a national cardiothoracic surgical data base. Ann Thorac Surg [Internet]. 1989;48(6):755–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, Hur K, Gibbs JO, Barbour G, et al. Risk adjustment of the postoperative mortality rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs surgical risk study. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(4):325–38.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, Hur K, Demakis J, Aust JB, 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. Ann Surg. 1998;228(4):491–507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Khuri SF. The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery. 2005;138(5):837–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J, Jonasson O, Jones RS, Campbell DA, et al. Successful implementation of the department of Veterans Affairs’ national surgical quality improvement program in the private sector: the patient safety in surgery study. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):329–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Ko CY. Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons national surgical quality improvement program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg. 2009;250(3):363–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen ME, Liu Y, Ko CY, Hall BL. Improved surgical outcomes for ACS NSQIP hospitals over time: evaluation of hospital cohorts with up to 8 years of participation. Ann Surg. 2016;263(2):267–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Osborne NH, Nicholas LH, Ryan AM, Thumma JR, Dimick JB. Association of hospital participation in a quality reporting program with surgical outcomes and expenditures for medicare beneficiaries. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313(5):496–504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Etzioni DA, Wasif N, Dueck AC, Cima RR, Hohmann SF, Naessens JM, et al. Association of hospital participation in a surgical outcomes monitoring program with inpatient complications and mortality. JAMA [Internet]. 2015;313(5):505–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fuchshuber PR, Greif W, Tidwell CR, Klemm MS, Frydel C, Wali A, et al. The power of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program--achieving a zero pneumonia rate in general surgery patients. Perm J. 2012;16(1):39–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cima R, Dankbar E, Lovely J, Pendlimari R, Aronhalt K, Nehring S, et al. Colorectal surgery surgical site infection reduction program: a national surgical quality improvement program-driven multidisciplinary single-institution experience. J Am Coll Surg [Internet]. 2013;216(1):23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lutfiyya W, Parsons D, Breen J. A colorectal “care bundle” to reduce surgical site infections in colorectal surgeries: a single-center experience. Perm J. 2012;16(3):10–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Thanh NX, Baron T, Litvinchuk S. An economic evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) in Alberta, Canada. Ann Surg. 2019;269(5):866–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell DA, Englesbe MJ, Kubus JJ, Phillips LRS, Shanley CJ, Velanovich V, et al. Accelerating the pace of surgical quality improvement: the power of hospital collaboration. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill: 1960) [Internet]. 2010;145(10):985–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guillamondegui OD, Gunter OL, Hines L, Martin BJ, Gibson W, Clarke PC, et al. Using the national surgical quality improvement program and the Tennessee surgical quality collaborative to improve surgical outcomes. J Am College Surg [Internet]. 2012;214(4):709–14; discussion 714-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hollenbeak CS, Boltz MM, Wang L, Schubart J, Ortenzi G, Zhu J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg. 2011;254(4):619–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McNelis J, Castaldi M. “The National Surgery Quality Improvement Project” (NSQIP): a new tool to increase patient safety and cost efficiency in a surgical intensive care unit. Patient Saf Surg [Internet]. 2014;8:19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van Katwyk S, Thavorn K, Coyle D, Moloo H, Forster AJ, Jackson T, et al. The return of investment of hospital-based surgical quality improvement programs in reducing surgical site infection at a Canadian tertiary-care hospital. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol [Internet]. 2019;40(2):125–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nimeri AA, Bautista J, Philip R. Reducing healthcare costs using ACS NSQIP-driven quality improvement projects: a success story from Sheikh Khalifa Medical City (SKMC). World J Surg [Internet]. 2019;43(2):331–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Morton J. The first metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program quality initiative: decreasing readmissions through opportunities provided. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(3):377–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brethauer SA, Grieco A, Fraker T, Evans-Labok K, Smith A, McEvoy MD, et al. Employing enhanced recovery goals in bariatric surgery (ENERGY): a national quality improvement project using the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program. Surg Obes Relat Dis [Internet]. 2019;15(11):1977–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Clapp B, Harper B, Barrientes A, Wicker E, Alvara C, Tyroch A. The MBSAQIP is going viral! 194 hits and still going strong. Surg Obes Relat Dis [Internet]. 2020;16(10):1401–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Demeusy A, Sill A, Averbach A. Current role of staple line reinforcement in 30-day outcomes of primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: an analysis of MBSAQIP data, 2015–2016 PUF. Surg Obes Relat Dis [Internet]. 2018;14(10):1454–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Berger ER, Clements RH, Morton JM, Huffman KM, Wolfe BM, Nguyen NT, 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):464–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Noyes K, Myneni AA, Schwaitzberg SD, Hoffman AB. Quality of MBSAQIP data: bad luck, or lack of QA plan? Surg Endosc. 2020;34(2):973–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Poulose BK, Roll S, Murphy JW, Matthews BD, Todd Heniford B, Voeller G, et al. Design and implementation of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC): improving value in hernia care. Hernia. 2016;20(2):177–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sahoo S, Haskins IN, Huang LC, Krpata DM, Derwin KA, Poulose BK, et al. Early wound morbidity after open ventral hernia repair with biosynthetic or polypropylene mesh. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(4):472–480.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zolin SJ, Petro CC, Prabhu AS, Fafaj A, Thomas JD, Horne CM, et al. Registry-based randomized controlled trials: a new paradigm for surgical research. J Surg Res. 2020;255:428–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Petro CC, Zolin S, Krpata D, Alkhatib H, Tu C, Rosen MJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh. JAMA Surg [Internet]. 2021;156:22–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. ABS practice improvement resources [Internet]. Available from: https://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?exam-mocpa.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University SOM, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Brenda M. Zosa & Anne O. Lidor

Authors
  1. Brenda M. Zosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne O. Lidor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne O. Lidor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School - Baystate, Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA

    John R. Romanelli

  2. Department of Surgery, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, VA, USA

    Jonathan M. Dort

  3. Department of Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    Rebecca B. Kowalski

  4. Department of Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Prashant Sinha

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zosa, B.M., Lidor, A.O. (2022). Tracking Quality: Data Registries. In: Romanelli, J.R., Dort, J.M., Kowalski, R.B., Sinha, P. (eds) The SAGES Manual of Quality, Outcomes and Patient Safety. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94610-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94610-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94609-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94610-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation