A decade's experience with quality improvement in cardiac surgery using the Veterans Affairs and Society of Thoracic Surgeons national databases

OBJECTIVE: To review the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) national databases over the past 10 years to evaluate their relative similarities and differences, to appraise their use as quality improvement tools, and to assess their potential to facilitate improvements in quality of cardiac surgical care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The VA developed a mandatory risk-adjusted database in 1987 to monitor outcomes of cardiac surgery at all VA medical centers. In 1989 the STS developed a voluntary risk-adjusted database to help members assess quality and outcomes in their individual programs and to facilitate improvements in quality of care. METHODS: A short data form on every veteran operated on at each VA medical center is completed and transmitted electronically for analysis of unadjusted and risk-adjusted death and complications, as well as length of stay. Masked, confidential semiannual reports are then distributed to each program's clinical team and the associated administrator. These reports are also reviewed by a national quality oversight committee. Thus, VA data are used both locally for quality improvement and at the national level with quality surveillance. The STS dataset (217 core fields and 255 extended fields) is transmitted for each patient semiannually to the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) for warehousing, analysis, and distribution. Site-specific reports are produced with regional and national aggregate comparisons for unadjusted and adjusted surgical deaths and complications, as well as length of stay for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), valvular procedures, and valvular/CABG procedures. Both databases use the logistic regression modeling approach. Data for key processes of care are also captured in both databases. Research projects are frequently carried out using each database. RESULTS: More than 74,000 and 1.6 million cardiac surgical patients have been entered into the VA and STS databases, respectively. Risk factors that predict surgical death for CABG are very similar in the two databases, as are the odds ratios for most of the risk factors. One major difference is that the VA is 99% male, the STS 71% male. Both databases have shown a significant reduction in the risk-adjusted surgical death rate during the past decade despite the fact that patients have presented with an increased risk factor profile. The ratio of observed to expected deaths decreased from 1.05 to 0.9 for the VA and from 1.5 to 0.9 for the STS. CONCLUSION: It appears that the routine feedback of risk-adjusted data on local performance provided by these programs heightens awareness and leads to self-examination and self-assessment, which in turn improves quality and outcomes. This general quality improvement template should be considered for application in other settings beyond cardiac surgery.     

Continuous assessment and improvement in quality of care. A model from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The authors organized the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Study (CICSS) to provide risk-adjusted outcome data for the continuous assessment and improvement of quality of care for all patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the VA. BACKGROUND: The use of risk-adjusted outcomes to monitor quality of health care has the potential advantage over consensus-derived standards of being free of preconceived biases about how health care should be provided. Monitoring outcomes of all health care episodes, as opposed to review of selected cases (e.g., adverse outcomes), has the advantages of greater statistical power, the opportunity to compare processes of care between good and bad outcomes, and the positive psychology of treating all providers equally. These two concepts, together with a pre-existing peer committee (the VA Cardiac Surgery Consultants Committee) to review, interpret, and act on the risk-adjusted outcome data, form the primary design considerations for CICSS. METHODS: Patient-level risk and outcome (operative mortality and morbidity) data are collected prospectively on each of the approximately 7000 patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the VA each year. These outcomes, adjusted for patient risk using logistic regression, are provided every 6 months to each cardiac surgery program and to a national peer review committee for internal and external quality assessment and improvement. RESULTS: For the most recent 12-month period with complete data collection, observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios ranged from 0.2 to 2.2, with eight centers falling outside of the 90% confidence limits for an O/E ratio equaling 1.0. The O/E ratio for all centers has fallen by 14% over the 4.5-year period of this program (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: A large-scale, low-cost program of continuous quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcome is feasible. This program has been associated with a decrease in risk-adjusted operative mortality.     

The role of the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in patient care, surgical education, research and faculty development

Veterans Administration (VA) medical centers have had a long history of providing medical care to those who have served their country. Over time, the VA has evolved into a facility that has had a major role in graduate medical education. In surgery, this had provided experience in the medical and surgical management of complex surgical disease involving the head and neck, chest, and gastrointestinal tract, and in the fields of surgical oncology, peripheral vascular disease, and the subspecialties of urology, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. The VA provides a venue for the attending physician and resident to work in concert to allow the resident to shoulder increasing accountability in decision-making and delivery of care in the outpatient arena, the operating room, and the intensive care unit. Medical students assigned to a VA hospital are afforded a great opportunity to be exposed to preoperative planning, discussions leading to informed consent for surgery, the actual operation, and postoperative care. Numerous opportunities at the VA are available for novice and experienced medical faculty members to develop and/or enhance skills and abilities in patient care, medical education, and research. In addition, the VA offers unique opportunities for academic physicians and other healthcare professionals to administer its many programs, thereby developing leadership skills and experience in the process. The VA is uniquely situated to design and conduct multicenter clinical trials. The most important aspect of this is the infrastructure provided by the VA Cooperative Studies Program. Of the four missions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, research and education is essential to provide quality, state of the art clinical care to the veteran. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is an example of how outcomes based research can favorably impact on patient outcome. Looking across the horizon of information solutions available to surgeons, the options are limited. This is not the case for the Department of Veterans Affairs. With the congressionally mandated charge for the VA to compare its quality to private clinicians, the advent of the "Surgery Package" became possible. The VA will continue its leadership position in the healthcare arena if it can successfully address the challenges facing it.     

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. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

OBJECTIVE: To provide reliable risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality rates after major surgery to the 123 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) performing major surgery, and to use risk-adjusted outcomes in the monitoring and improvement of the quality of surgical care to all veterans. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Outcome-based comparative measures of the quality of surgical care among surgical services and surgical subspecialties have been elusive. METHODS: This study included prospective assessment of presurgical risk factors, process of care during surgery, and outcomes 30 days after surgery on veterans undergoing major surgery in 123 medical centers; development of multivariable risk-adjustment models; identification of high and low outlier facilities by observed-to-expected outcome ratios; and generation of annual reports of comparative outcomes to all surgical services in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). RESULTS: The National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data base includes 417,944 major surgical procedures performed between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 1997. In FY97, 11 VAMCs were low outliers for risk-adjusted observed-to-expected mortality ratios; 13 VAMCs were high outliers for risk-adjusted observed-to-expected mortality ratios. Identification of high and low outliers by unadjusted mortality rates would have ascribed an outlier status incorrectly to 25 of 39 hospitals, an error rate of 64%. Since 1994, the 30-day mortality and morbidity rates for major surgery have fallen 9% and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable, valid information on patient presurgical risk factors, process of care during surgery, and 30-day morbidity and mortality rates is available for all major surgical procedures in the 123 VAMCs performing surgery in the VHA. With this information, the VHA has established the first prospective outcome-based program for comparative assessment and enhancement of the quality of surgical care among multiple institutions for several surgical subspecialties. Key features to the success of the NSQIP are the support of the surgeons who practice in the VHA, consistent clinical definitions and data collection by dedicated nurses, a uniform nationwide informatics system, and the support of VHA administration and managerial staff.     

Audit, quality control, and performance in thoracic surgery: a North American perspective

Although difficult to precisely define, health care quality is often measured by components of structure, outcomes, and process. One way for thoracic surgeons to evaluate their practices is to compare themselves with evidence-based national guidelines. Outcomes data are often generated from entries into large patient databases. The largest examples of these databases include the STS National Databases and the VA/ACS NSQIP programs. Each of these has unique features, but there is the common goal of enabling participants to examine their surgical outcomes and results relative to others. The data integrity of these databases is high. The new STS composite quality score for CABG combines providers' outcome and practice data into a calculated index for comparison with national averages. In addition to providing meaningful information regarding surgical outcomes and quality, these databases are used as the basis for risk-adjusted models to accurately predict surgical morbidity and mortality. These models can be used as auditing tools against which surgeon- and site-specific morbidity and mortality can be compared with predicted values. As practices and methods continue to evolve, measures of quality--and therefore quality itself--will continue to improve, resulting in better patient care.     

Predicting acute renal failure after coronary bypass surgery: cross-validation of two risk-stratification algorithms

BACKGROUND: Acute renal failure (ARF) requiring dialysis after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) occurs in 1 to 5% of patients and is independently associated with postoperative mortality, even after case-mix adjustment. A risk-stratification algorithm that could reliably identify patients at increased risk of ARF could help improve outcomes. METHODS: To assess the validity and generalizability of a previously published preoperative renal risk-stratification algorithm, we analyzed data from the Quality Measurement and Management Initiative (QMMI)1 patient cohort. The QMMI includes all adult patients (N = 9498) who underwent CABG at 1 of 12 academic tertiary care hospitals from August 1993 to October 1995. ARF requiring dialysis was the outcome of interest. Cross-validation of a recursive partitioning algorithm developed from the VA Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program (CICSP) was performed on the QMMI. An additive severity score derived from logistic regression was also cross-validated on the QMMI. RESULTS: The CICSP recursive partitioning algorithm discriminated well (ARF vs. no ARF) in QMMI patients, even though the QMMI cohort was more diverse. Rates of ARF were similar among risk subgroups in the CICSP tree, as was the overall ranking of subgroups by risk. Using logistic regression, independent predictors of ARF in the QMMI cohort were similar to those found in the CICSP. The CICSP additive severity score performed well in the QMMI cohort, successfully stratifying patients into low-, medium-, high-, and very high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CICSP preoperative renal-risk algorithms are valid and generalizable across diverse populations.     

Education in Vascular Access

The successful creation and use of an arteriovenous vascular access (VA) requires a coordinated, educated multidisciplinary team to ensure an optimal VA for each patient. Patient education programs on VA are associated with increased arteriovenous VA use at dialysis initiation. Education should be tailored to patient goals and preferences with the understanding that experiential education from patient to patient is far more influential than that provided by the healthcare professional. VA education for the nephrologist should focus on addressing the systematic and patient‐level barriers in achieving a functional VA, with specific components relating to VA creation, maturation, and cannulation that consider patient goals and preferences. A deficit in nursing skills in the area of assessment and cannulation can have devastating consequences for hemodialysis patients. Delivery of an integrated education program increases nurses’ knowledge of VA and development of simulation programs or constructs to assist in cannulation of the VA will greatly facilitate the much needed skill transfer. Adequate VA surgical training and experience are critical to the creation and outcomes of VA. Simulations can benefit nephrologists, dialysis nurses surgeons, and interventionalists though aiding in surgical creation, understanding of the physiology and anatomy of a dysfunctional VA, and practicing cannulation techniques. All future educational initiatives must emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary care to attain successful VA outcomes.     

Validation of Surgical Intensive Care-Infection Registry: a medical informatics system for intensive care unit research, quality of care improvement, and daily patient care

BACKGROUND: We developed a prototype electronic clinical information system called the Surgical Intensive Care-Infection Registry (SIC-IR) to prospectively study infectious complications and monitor quality of care improvement programs in the surgical and trauma intensive care unit. The objective of this study was to validate SIC-IR as a successful health information technology with an accurate clinical data repository. STUDY DESIGN: Using the DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success as a framework, we evaluated SIC-IR in a 3-month prospective crossover study of physician use in one of our two surgical and trauma intensive care units (SIC-IR unit versus non SIC-IR unit). Three simultaneous research methodologies were used: a user survey study, a pair of time-motion studies, and an accuracy study of SIC-IR's clinical data repository. RESULTS: The SIC-IR user survey results were positive for system reliability, graphic user interface, efficiency, and overall benefit to patient care. There was a significant decrease in prerounding time of nearly 4 minutes per patient on the SIC-IR unit compared with the non SIC-IR unit. The SIC-IR documentation and data archiving was accurate 74% to 100% of the time depending on the data entry method used. This accuracy was significantly improved compared with normal hand-written documentation on the non SIC-IR unit. CONCLUSIONS: SIC-IR proved to be a useful application both at individual user and organizational levels and will serve as an accurate tool to conduct prospective research and monitor quality of care improvement programs.     

The Canadian four-centre study of anaesthetic outcomes: II. Can outcomes be used to assess the quality of anaesthesia care?

Since anaesthesia, unlike medical or surgical specialties, does not constitute treatment, this study sought to determine if methods used to assess medical or surgical outcomes (that is the determination of adverse outcome) are applicable to anaesthesia. Anaesthetists collected information on patient, surgical and anaesthetic factors while data on recovery room and postoperative events were evaluated by research nurses. Data on 27,184 inpatients were collected and the analysis of outcomes determined for the intraoperative, post-anaesthetic care unit and postoperative time periods. Logistic regression was used to control for differences in patient populations across the four hospitals. In addition, a random selection of 115 major events was classified by a panel of anaesthetists into anaesthesia, surgical and patient-disease contributions. Across the three time periods, large variations in minor outcomes were found across the four hospitals; these variations ranged from two-to five-fold after case-mix adjustment (age, physical status, sex, emergency versus elective and length of anaesthesia). The rates of major events and deaths were similar across three hospitals; one hospital had a lower mortality rate (P < 0.001) but had a higher rate of all major events (P < 0.0001). Of major events assessed by physician panels, 18.3% had some anaesthetic involvement and no deaths were attributable partially or wholly to anaesthesia. Possible reasons to account for these variations in outcome include compliance in recording events, inadequate case-mix adjustment, differences in interpretation of the variables (despite guidelines) and institutional differences in monitoring, charting and observation protocols. The authors conclude that measuring quality of care in anaesthesia by comparing major outcomes is unsatisfactory since the contribution of anaesthesia to perioperative outcomes is uncertain and that variations may be explained by institutional differences which are beyond the control of the anaesthetist. It is suggested that minor adverse events, particularly those of concern to the patient, should be the next focus for quality improvement in anaesthesia.     

Contemporary outcomes of open thoracic aortic surgery in a veteran population: do risk models exaggerate mortality?

Background

We evaluated contemporary outcomes of open thoracic aortic surgery at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center affiliated with a major academic aortic program and examined the predictive value of 2 established cardiac risk models.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all open thoracic aortic operations performed between April 1998 and April 2008 (n = 100). Both the EuroSCORE and the VA Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program (CICSP) scores were evaluated.

Results

Procedures included ascending aortic repair (n = 74, 15 with arch repair), descending thoracic repair (n = 11, 1 with arch repair), and thoracoabdominal aortic repair (n = 15). Emergency surgery was necessary in 15 cases, and 19 procedures were reoperations. The patients' logistic EuroSCORE and the CICSP scores were similar (18.7% and 18.2%, respectively), but both scores significantly exceeded the observed operative mortality rate (8.0%, P = .008).

Conclusions

Good outcomes can be achieved when thoracic aortic surgery is performed at an experienced VA center. The cardiac risk models we examined overpredicted operative mortality.     

Predicting outcomes for cardiac surgery patients after intensive care unit admission

Most performance assessments of cardiac surgery programs use models based on preoperative risk factors. Models that were primarily developed to assess performance in general intensive care unit (ICU) populations have also been used to evaluate the quality of surgical, anesthetic, and ICU management after cardiac surgery. Although there are currently 5 models for evaluating general ICU populations, only the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) system has been independently validated for cardiac surgery patients. This review describes the evolution, rationale, and accuracy of APACHE models that are specific for cardiac surgery patients as well as for patients who have had vascular and thoracic procedures. In addition to performance comparisons based on observed and predicted mortality, APACHE provides similar comparisons of ICU and hospital lengths of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. However, the low mortality incidence of many cardiac outcomes means that very large numbers of patients must be obtained to get good predictive models. Thus, the equations are not designed for predicting individual patients' outcome but have proven useful in performance comparisons and for quality improvement initiatives.     

The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Prompted by the need to assess comparatively the quality of surgical care in 133 Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, the Department of Veterans Affairs conducted the National VA Surgical Risk Study between October 1, 1991, and December 31, 1993, in 44 VA medical centers. The study developed and validated models for risk adjustment of 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality after major surgery in 8 noncardiac surgical specialties. Similar models were developed for cardiac surgery by the VA's Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program. Based on the results of the National VA Surgical Risk Study and the Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program, the VA established in 1994 a VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), in which all the medical centers performing major surgery participated. An NSQIP nurse at each center oversees the prospective collection of data and their electronic transmission for analysis at 1 of 2 data coordinating centers. Feedback to the providers and managers is aimed at achieving continuous quality improvement. It consists of (1) comparative, site-specific, and outcome-based annual reports; (2) periodic assessment of performance; (3) self-assessment tools; (4) structured site visits; and (5) dissemination of best practices. The NSQIP also provides an infrastructure to enable the VA investigators to query the database and produce scientific presentations and publications. Since the inception of the NSQIP data collection process, the 30-day postoperative mortality after major surgery in the VA has decreased by 27%, and the 30-day morbidity by 45%. The future of the NSQIP lies in expanding it to the private sector and in enhancing its capabilities by incorporating additional measures of outcome, structure, process, and cost.     

The Case Against Volume as a Measure of Quality of Surgical Care

Healthcare purchasers, represented by the Leapfrog Group, have attempted to set standards for “quality” of surgical care that include a minimum volume for each of five major surgical procedures, with the assumption that higher volumes in surgery bring better outcomes. The VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is a validated, outcome-based program that prospectively collects clinical data on all major surgical operations in the VA, and builds validated risk-adjustment models that generate, for each hospital and each surgical specialty within a hospital, risk-adjusted outcomes expressed as O/E (observed to expected) ratios for 30-day mortality and morbidity. The O/E ratio has been validated as a reliable comparative measure of the quality of surgical care. Unlike retrospective studies that are based on administrative databases, NSQIP studies have failed to demonstrate a direct relationship between volume and risk-adjusted outcomes of surgery across various specialties. These studies have emphasized that the quality of systems of care was more important than volume in determining the overall quality of surgical care at an institution. High-volume hospitals could still deliver poor care in as much as low-volume hospitals could deliver good care. NSQIP studies have also underscored the major limitations of claims data and administrative databases in the provision of adequate risk-adjustment models that are crucial for volume–outcome studies. Therefore, volume should not be substituted for prospectively monitored and properly risk-adjusted outcomes as a comparative measure of the quality of surgical care.     

Safety, quality, and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

The Institute of Medicine 1999 publication, To Err is Human, focused attention on preventable provider errors in surgery, and prompted numerous new national initiatives to improve patient safety. It is uncertain whether these initiatives have actually improved patient safety, mainly because of the lack of a quantitative metric for the assessment of patient safety in surgery. A 15-year experience with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, which originated in the Veteran's Administration in 1991 and was recently made available to the private sector, prompts the surgical community to place patient safety in surgery within a much larger conceptual framework than that of the Institute of Medicine report, and provides a quantitative metric for the assessment of patient safety initiatives. This conceptual framework defines patient safety in surgery as safety from all adverse outcomes (not only preventable errors and sentinel events); regards safety as an integral part of quality of surgical care; recognizes that adverse outcomes, and hence patient safety, are primarily determined by quality of systems of care; and uses comparative risk-adjusted outcome data as a metric for the identification of system problems and for the assessment and improvement of patient safety from adverse outcomes.     

Defining high quality health care

Most health care quality improvement efforts target measures of health care structures, processes, and/or outcomes. Structural measures examine relatively fixed aspects of health care delivery such as physical plant and human resources. Process measures, the focus of the largest proportion of quality improvement efforts, assess specific transactions in clinical-patient encounters, such as use of appropriate surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, which are expected to improve outcomes. Outcome measures, which comprise quality of life endpoints as well as morbidity and mortality, are of greatest interest to clinicians and patients, but entail the greatest complexity, as the majority of variance in outcomes is attributable to patient and environmental factors that may not be readily modifiable. Selecting among structure, process, and outcome measures for quality improvement efforts generally will be dictated by the specific clinical situation for which improvement is desired.One aspect of health care quality that has received a great deal of attention in recent years is the relationship between surgical volume and health outcomes. Volume, an inherent characteristic of a health care facility or provider, is generally considered a structural measure of quality. Many studies have demonstrated a positive association between volume and outcomes, and policymakers in the private and public sectors have begun to consider volume in certification and reimbursement decisions. The volume-outcome association is not without controversy, however. Most studies in the field are limited by the nature of the administrative data on which they are based, and some studies have found that variation in quality within volume quantiles exceeds differences between quantiles. Moreover, regionalization driven by a focus on volume may exert adverse effects on access to care.The movement for health care quality improvement faces substantial methodological, clinical, financial, and political challenges. Despite these challenges, it is a movement that is gaining momentum, and the emphasis on quality in health care delivery is likely only to increase in the future. It is crucial, therefore, that physicians assume increasing leadership roles in efforts to define, measure, report, and improve quality of care.     

Prioritizing Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Surgery Quality Improvement

Breast‐cancer‐specific tools that measure health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) were developed for use in research or clinical practice, and little is known about these tools’ performance ability for quality improvement. Furthermore, existing tools may not fully reflect all issues that contribute to quality care as seen by patients. Work is needed to identify and validate patient‐reported outcome measures for use in quality improvement in breast cancer surgical care. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study in order to better understand what HRQOL domains and processes of care define high quality surgical care for women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer from both the patient and clinician perspective. We conducted focus groups and one‐on‐one interviews with 15 women and administered a prioritization questionnaire to participants. We also conducted a prioritization questionnaire among surgical oncologists, general surgeons, and reconstructive surgeons who are members of the Washington State Medical Association. Both the patient and surgeon prioritization questionnaire asked participants to prioritize HRQOL and treatment satisfaction‐related aspects of their breast cancer surgical care at key time points before and after mastectomy. A Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to review focus group, interview, and prioritization questionnaire results and make recommendations as to patient‐reported outcome domains to focus on and existing instruments to use for quality improvement. Patients and clinicians largely agreed on important HRQOL domains, including emotional well‐being, education, communication, and process of care. The Stakeholder Advisory Panel, composed of 12 clinicians and five patients, reviewed study findings and existing patient‐reported outcomes measurement tools. The panel recommended that the BREAST‐Q, a flexible tool with independently validated modules designed for research and clinical care, is an ideal tool to begin developing novel quality improvement benchmarks focused on patient‐reported outcomes.     

Multidisciplinary care in surgery: Are team-based interventions cost-effective?

BackgroundMultidisciplinary care has been shown to improve outcomes for patients, and interprofessional collaboration has been demonstrated to be beneficial for providers. In the field of surgery, although a large number of multidisciplinary care teams have been described, no study to date has examined whether or not these team-based interventions are generally cost-effective. This is the first systematic review to examine cost savings attributable to multidisciplinary care across all surgical fields.MethodsA comprehensive literature review of articles published on cost outcomes associated with multidisciplinary surgical teams was performed. Selected articles reported on cost outcomes directly attributable to a collaborative intervention. Cost savings were totaled on a per-patient basis. Each article was also reviewed to determine whether the authors ultimately recommended the team-based intervention described.ResultsA total of 1421 articles were identified in the initial query, of which 43 met inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine studies (91%) reported multidisciplinary care to be cost effective, with an average cost savings among all studies of $5815 per patient. No significant differences in the amount of savings achieved were found between different intervention subtypes. All studies ultimately recommended (40) or gave mixed reviews (3) of multidisciplinary care, regardless of whether cost savings were achieved.ConclusionMultidisciplinary surgical care is beneficial not only in terms of patient and provider outcomes, but also in reference to its cost-effectiveness. Well-designed multidisciplinary teams tend to optimize perioperative care for all involved parties. Efforts to improve surgical care should employ multidisciplinary teams to promote both quality and cost-effective care.     

Surgical quality— what have we done and where are we going?

Improving the quality and safety of patient care has become a major focus in medicine. In surgery, measuring and standardizing care dates back over a century and has since evolved tremendously with the establishment of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and its many quality initiatives. These efforts to prioritize surgical quality have resulted in improved operative results and patient outcomes. Consequently, governmental agencies and regulatory bodies have turned their attention towards healthcare quality as the primary metric for physician and hospital reimbursement. As surgical quality continues to evolve, new considerations have emerged including incorporation of patient-reported outcomes as measures for high quality care. Evaluating how to better integrate the patient's perspective and determining how to align government payment models with participation in standardization and verification programs are important next steps in the evolution of surgical quality.