Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 17, Supplement 3, pp 233–241

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

  • Edward J. Clifford
  • Edward B. De Vol
  • Barbara A. Pockaj
  • Lee G. Wilke
  • Judy C. Boughey
American Society of Breast Surgeons

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.

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 19752006. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 5.
    American Society of Breast Surgeons. Mastery of breast surgery program, version 1.5. Revised 13 Jan 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jonasson O, Kwakawa F. Retirement age and the work force in general surgery. Ann Surg. 1996;224:574–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bendorf DC, Helmer SD, Osland JS, Tenofsky PL. Income, productivity, and satisfaction of breast surgeons. Am J Surg. 2010;199:405–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silverstein M. Where’s the outrage? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:78–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cettomai D, Gelber AC, Christopher-Stine L. A survey of rheumatologists’ practice for prescribing pneumocystis prophylaxis. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:792–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 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.

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward J. Clifford
    • 1
  • Edward B. De Vol
    • 2
  • Barbara A. Pockaj
    • 3
  • Lee G. Wilke
    • 4
  • Judy C. Boughey
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryBaylor Medical Center at IrvingIrvingUSA
  2. 2.Baylor Health Care System Institute for Health Care Research and ImprovementDallasUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryMayo ClinicScottsdaleUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations