| Title |
Quality measures in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Hernia, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10029-018-1794-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. J. Sun, R. N. Kamal, G. K. Lee, R. S. Nazerali |
| Abstract |
The US healthcare system is shifting towards reimbursement for quality over quantity of care. Quality measures are tied to financial incentives in these healthcare models. It is important that surgeons become familiar with quality measures addressing ventral hernia repair and understand candidate measures that may drive future quality measure development. We performed a systematic review of society websites, quality measure databases, and the literature (Pubmed, Embase/Scopus, and Google Scholar) for quality measures addressing ventral hernia surgery. Clinical practice guidelines were included as candidate quality measures. All measures were categorized as structure, process or outcome according to Donabedian domains, as well as within the six National Quality Strategy (NQS) domains. Thirty quality measures and candidate measures were identified. Eight candidate measures from the American Hernia Society addressed ventral hernia repair, and 22 quality measures in general surgery were also relevant to ventral hernia repair. Of the candidate measures, 6 (75%) were outcome and 2 (25%) were process measures. Of existing general surgery quality measures, 9 (41%) were outcome and 13 (59%) were process measures. No structural measures were identified. Overall, the majority of measures addressed NQS priorities of effective clinical care (33%) and patient safety (27%), while few addressed other domains. Both the Donabedian domains of quality and NQS priorities were unequally represented in the current measures addressing ventral hernia repair. Recognizing and addressing the under-represented areas will provide a more balanced framework for developing quality measures and ensure that ventral hernia surgery is appropriately evaluated in value-based payment models. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,355,501
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Hernia
#579
of 1,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,155
of 328,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hernia
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.