Abstract
Background. Centrally mandated levels of performance are now common in the Veterans Health Administration. Performance standards for ambulatory procedures were developed based on HCFA data. The 11 procedures to be measured were arthroscopy, breast biopsy, eyelid procedures, lens/cataracts, bronchoscopy, endoscopy, colonoscopy, hernia repair, cystoscopy, laparoscopy, and cardiac catheterization. Were the performance standards for ambulatory procedures reasonable and achievable in a tertiary care VA? Methods. Ambulatory procedure performance standards for the 11 selected procedures were evaluated for Fiscal Year 1998 at one tertiary care VA and at each of the 22 Veteran's Integrated Service Networks (VISNs). Further review was undertaken for those procedures in which performance was below the fully successful level. This included chart reviews at the tertiary care VA and analysis of caseloads by VISN. Descriptive statistics were used as well as Student's t test to analyze the difference in means. Results. The tertiary care VA performed at the fully successful level for 6 procedures and at the exceptional level for 3 procedures. Performance levels for bronchoscopy and laparoscopy were below the preset goals. At the VISN level, 8 VISNs performed at the fully successful/exceptional level for all 11 procedures. The remaining 14 were deficient in 1 to 4 procedures. Eight of the VISNs were deficient in 2 or 3 procedures. Six VISNs were deficient in laparoscopy. Conclusions. The majority of centrally mandated performance standards appear to be reasonable and achievable. One notable exception is laparoscopy. Surgeons should understand how performance standards are calculated at their institution and review the data carefully for any systematic errors. Underperformance can be used as an opportunity to improve both data collection and outcomes.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 47-51 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Journal of Surgical Research |
| Volume | 88 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 2000 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Ambulatory surgery
- Laparoscopy
- Quality improvement
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Surgery
Cite this
Performance standards : Piece of cake or pie in the sky? / Neumayer, Leigh A; Mastin, Mary K.; Hinson, Douglas M.
In: Journal of Surgical Research, Vol. 88, No. 1, 01.2000, p. 47-51.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance standards
T2 - Piece of cake or pie in the sky?
AU - Neumayer, Leigh A
AU - Mastin, Mary K.
AU - Hinson, Douglas M.
PY - 2000/1
Y1 - 2000/1
N2 - Background. Centrally mandated levels of performance are now common in the Veterans Health Administration. Performance standards for ambulatory procedures were developed based on HCFA data. The 11 procedures to be measured were arthroscopy, breast biopsy, eyelid procedures, lens/cataracts, bronchoscopy, endoscopy, colonoscopy, hernia repair, cystoscopy, laparoscopy, and cardiac catheterization. Were the performance standards for ambulatory procedures reasonable and achievable in a tertiary care VA? Methods. Ambulatory procedure performance standards for the 11 selected procedures were evaluated for Fiscal Year 1998 at one tertiary care VA and at each of the 22 Veteran's Integrated Service Networks (VISNs). Further review was undertaken for those procedures in which performance was below the fully successful level. This included chart reviews at the tertiary care VA and analysis of caseloads by VISN. Descriptive statistics were used as well as Student's t test to analyze the difference in means. Results. The tertiary care VA performed at the fully successful level for 6 procedures and at the exceptional level for 3 procedures. Performance levels for bronchoscopy and laparoscopy were below the preset goals. At the VISN level, 8 VISNs performed at the fully successful/exceptional level for all 11 procedures. The remaining 14 were deficient in 1 to 4 procedures. Eight of the VISNs were deficient in 2 or 3 procedures. Six VISNs were deficient in laparoscopy. Conclusions. The majority of centrally mandated performance standards appear to be reasonable and achievable. One notable exception is laparoscopy. Surgeons should understand how performance standards are calculated at their institution and review the data carefully for any systematic errors. Underperformance can be used as an opportunity to improve both data collection and outcomes.
AB - Background. Centrally mandated levels of performance are now common in the Veterans Health Administration. Performance standards for ambulatory procedures were developed based on HCFA data. The 11 procedures to be measured were arthroscopy, breast biopsy, eyelid procedures, lens/cataracts, bronchoscopy, endoscopy, colonoscopy, hernia repair, cystoscopy, laparoscopy, and cardiac catheterization. Were the performance standards for ambulatory procedures reasonable and achievable in a tertiary care VA? Methods. Ambulatory procedure performance standards for the 11 selected procedures were evaluated for Fiscal Year 1998 at one tertiary care VA and at each of the 22 Veteran's Integrated Service Networks (VISNs). Further review was undertaken for those procedures in which performance was below the fully successful level. This included chart reviews at the tertiary care VA and analysis of caseloads by VISN. Descriptive statistics were used as well as Student's t test to analyze the difference in means. Results. The tertiary care VA performed at the fully successful level for 6 procedures and at the exceptional level for 3 procedures. Performance levels for bronchoscopy and laparoscopy were below the preset goals. At the VISN level, 8 VISNs performed at the fully successful/exceptional level for all 11 procedures. The remaining 14 were deficient in 1 to 4 procedures. Eight of the VISNs were deficient in 2 or 3 procedures. Six VISNs were deficient in laparoscopy. Conclusions. The majority of centrally mandated performance standards appear to be reasonable and achievable. One notable exception is laparoscopy. Surgeons should understand how performance standards are calculated at their institution and review the data carefully for any systematic errors. Underperformance can be used as an opportunity to improve both data collection and outcomes.
KW - Ambulatory surgery
KW - Laparoscopy
KW - Quality improvement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033964760&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033964760&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1006/jsre.1999.5782
DO - 10.1006/jsre.1999.5782
M3 - Article
VL - 88
SP - 47
EP - 51
JO - Journal of Surgical Research
JF - Journal of Surgical Research
SN - 0022-4804
IS - 1
ER -