Got, Christopher

Background: There is growing evidence that social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with disparities in access to care and hand and upper extremity health. Quality measures represent an opportunity to evaluate disparities in access and outcomes that can inform improvement interventions. We performed a systematic review of evidence regarding health disparities within hand surgery and aimed to develop suitable quality measures that are clinically important, feasible, usable, and scientifically acceptable. Methods: We performed a systematic review including common hand surgery terms to identify health disparities in hand surgery related to SDOH. Candidate quality measures were constructed based upon evidence from the systematic review. A consortium of 11 US-based hand and upper extremity surgeons completed a modified RAND/UCLA Delphi Appropriateness process to evaluate the importance, feasibility, usability, and scientific acceptability of the candidate quality measures. Panelists rated each measure on a scale of 1 ( definitely not important/feasible/usable/scientifically acceptable ) to 9 ( definitely important/feasible/usable/scientifically acceptable ) in 2 voting rounds separated by a face-to-face discussion. Agreement among panelists and validity were assessed using predetermined criteria. Results: Fourteen candidate quality measures addressing health disparities were identified based on evidence from the systematic review, including time to surgery and emergency department use after hand surgery based on insurance type, clinical outcomes based on social deprivation, among others. All 14 measures were accepted. Conclusions: Fourteen candidate quality measures were identified and accepted based upon consensus to address health disparities in hand surgery, although future investigation will be needed to evaluate their effectiveness.

Background: Quality measures are now commonplace and are increasingly tied to financial incentives. We reviewed the existing quality measures that address the upper limb and tested the null hypothesis that structure (capacity to deliver care), process (appropriate care), and outcome (the result of care) measures are equally represented. Methods: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures addressing upper limb surgery. Measures were characterized as structure, process, or outcome measures and were categorized according to their developer and their National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (National Quality Strategy) priority as articulated by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Results: We identified 134 quality measures addressing the upper limb: 131 (98%) process and three (2%) outcome measures. The majority of the process measures address the National Quality Strategy priority of effective clinical care (90%), with the remainder addressing communication and care coordination (5%), person and caregiver-centered experience and outcomes (4%), and community/population health (1%). Conclusions: Our review identified opportunities to develop more measures in the structure and outcome domains as well as measures addressing patient and family engagement, public health, safety, care coordination, and efficient use of resources. The most common existing measures—process measures addressing care—might not be the best measures of upper limb surgery quality given the relative lack of evidence for their use in care improvement.