Quality in Orthopaedic Surgery—An International Perspective: AOA Critical Issues

Quality is a hallmark of health care, although it is difficult to come to a consensus on who gets to define what "quality health care" is. Most health-care workers enter this field with the goal of improving the health of their patients (and the community), and while everyone tries to do t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 2013-01, Vol.95 (1), p.e3-e3
Hauptverfasser: Saleh, Khaled J, Bozic, Kevin J, Graham, David B, Shaha, Steven H, Swiontkowski, Marc F, Wright, James G, Robinson, Brooke S, Novicoff, Wendy M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e3
container_issue 1
container_start_page e3
container_title Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
container_volume 95
creator Saleh, Khaled J
Bozic, Kevin J
Graham, David B
Shaha, Steven H
Swiontkowski, Marc F
Wright, James G
Robinson, Brooke S
Novicoff, Wendy M
description Quality is a hallmark of health care, although it is difficult to come to a consensus on who gets to define what "quality health care" is. Most health-care workers enter this field with the goal of improving the health of their patients (and the community), and while everyone tries to do the best job possible, we must continuously seek better methods and techniques for achieving better outcomes. The passion for continuous improvement is fundamental, but passion is not sufficient by itself. There is substantial opportunity to improve quality and reduce cost in health care. Multidisciplinary teams that include physicians, nurses, and other ancillary care providers have led to decreased waiting times to see specialists and have also led to better management of chronic disease. By including ancillary care, providers can increase cancer-screening rates and have the potential to decrease readmissions. Moreover, the addition of hospitalists and physician assistants can produce quality and efficiency outcomes that are commensurate with those enjoyed by traditional house staff. However, truly improving performance is difficult due to questions about how we define "quality," design care processes, measure inputs and outputs, develop multi-stakeholder collaborations, and develop incentive programs for delivering "good" care. There is a definite need for more thorough and robust studies of the impact of pay-for-performance programs, with the inclusion of ancillary care providers. Current research has not shown that there is not enough evidence to be able to determine what incentive structure might "work" in a particular health-care system. Payment systems will continue to evolve to incentivize greater collaboration among providers to yield higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future efforts will necessitate the need for strong physician leadership in helping to develop an optimal care team that is as patient-centered as possible. Technology adds dimensions of capability to making improvement real and systematic, as well as providing safer care with fewer errors and better adherence to proven best practices. The drive for quality with technology produces better clinical outcomes and maximizes efficiencies and financial metrics of organizational performance. Technology also adds capabilities for capturing key metrics and reporting them back to clinicians and others. Improved data transparency informs those who can actually do things differently to produce better results and
doi_str_mv 10.2106/JBJS.L.00093
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1273159290</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1273159290</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2934-f12ea188da24148fe734bbf0aac02eda298211324a9235217cc9557defa764033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kM2O0zAUhS0EYsrAjjXKkgUp98dpEnal4qejSgUG1pbr3lBDmnTshFF3PARPyJPg0oHVlc79dI70KfUUYUoIs5dXr6-up6spANR8T02w4CJHrmb31QSAMK-5KC7Uoxi_JURrKB-qC2KqmCuYqE8fR9v64Zj5LluHYdcfrGy9y67H8FXC8ffPX_MuW3aDhM4Ovu9sm32QEA_iBv9DXmXz9TxbBD94lz7LGEeJj9WDxrZRntzdS_Xl7ZvPi_f5av1uuZivckc167xBEotVtbWkUVeNlKw3mwasdUCS0roiRCZta-KCsHSuLopyK40tZxqYL9Xzc-8h9DdpdzB7H520re2kH6NBKhmLmmpI6Isz6kIfY5DGHILf23A0COZk0ZwsmpX5azHhz-6ax81etv_hf9oSoM_Abd8mNfF7O95KMDux7bA7lYCeEecEyIBAkKcENf8Bnlx8qg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1273159290</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quality in Orthopaedic Surgery—An International Perspective: AOA Critical Issues</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Saleh, Khaled J ; Bozic, Kevin J ; Graham, David B ; Shaha, Steven H ; Swiontkowski, Marc F ; Wright, James G ; Robinson, Brooke S ; Novicoff, Wendy M</creator><creatorcontrib>Saleh, Khaled J ; Bozic, Kevin J ; Graham, David B ; Shaha, Steven H ; Swiontkowski, Marc F ; Wright, James G ; Robinson, Brooke S ; Novicoff, Wendy M</creatorcontrib><description>Quality is a hallmark of health care, although it is difficult to come to a consensus on who gets to define what "quality health care" is. Most health-care workers enter this field with the goal of improving the health of their patients (and the community), and while everyone tries to do the best job possible, we must continuously seek better methods and techniques for achieving better outcomes. The passion for continuous improvement is fundamental, but passion is not sufficient by itself. There is substantial opportunity to improve quality and reduce cost in health care. Multidisciplinary teams that include physicians, nurses, and other ancillary care providers have led to decreased waiting times to see specialists and have also led to better management of chronic disease. By including ancillary care, providers can increase cancer-screening rates and have the potential to decrease readmissions. Moreover, the addition of hospitalists and physician assistants can produce quality and efficiency outcomes that are commensurate with those enjoyed by traditional house staff. However, truly improving performance is difficult due to questions about how we define "quality," design care processes, measure inputs and outputs, develop multi-stakeholder collaborations, and develop incentive programs for delivering "good" care. There is a definite need for more thorough and robust studies of the impact of pay-for-performance programs, with the inclusion of ancillary care providers. Current research has not shown that there is not enough evidence to be able to determine what incentive structure might "work" in a particular health-care system. Payment systems will continue to evolve to incentivize greater collaboration among providers to yield higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future efforts will necessitate the need for strong physician leadership in helping to develop an optimal care team that is as patient-centered as possible. Technology adds dimensions of capability to making improvement real and systematic, as well as providing safer care with fewer errors and better adherence to proven best practices. The drive for quality with technology produces better clinical outcomes and maximizes efficiencies and financial metrics of organizational performance. Technology also adds capabilities for capturing key metrics and reporting them back to clinicians and others. Improved data transparency informs those who can actually do things differently to produce better results and outcomes. While health-care entities strive to focus on quality of care, measuring and reporting such care in a meaningful way are difficult. The best chance of improving overall care for patients is through the adoption of systems that improve coordination and continuity, not by health-care staff working harder. Only through collaboration and integration can health care incorporate a culture for improving quality and patient safety.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9355</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-1386</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00093</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23283380</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Copyright by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated</publisher><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects ; Australia ; Benchmarking ; Canada ; Checklist ; Humans ; Orthopedic Procedures - standards ; Orthopedics - standards ; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Quality Improvement ; Quality of Health Care ; United Kingdom ; United States ; World Health Organization</subject><ispartof>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2013-01, Vol.95 (1), p.e3-e3</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2013 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2934-f12ea188da24148fe734bbf0aac02eda298211324a9235217cc9557defa764033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23283380$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Saleh, Khaled J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bozic, Kevin J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, David B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaha, Steven H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swiontkowski, Marc F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, James G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Brooke S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novicoff, Wendy M</creatorcontrib><title>Quality in Orthopaedic Surgery—An International Perspective: AOA Critical Issues</title><title>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</title><addtitle>J Bone Joint Surg Am</addtitle><description>Quality is a hallmark of health care, although it is difficult to come to a consensus on who gets to define what "quality health care" is. Most health-care workers enter this field with the goal of improving the health of their patients (and the community), and while everyone tries to do the best job possible, we must continuously seek better methods and techniques for achieving better outcomes. The passion for continuous improvement is fundamental, but passion is not sufficient by itself. There is substantial opportunity to improve quality and reduce cost in health care. Multidisciplinary teams that include physicians, nurses, and other ancillary care providers have led to decreased waiting times to see specialists and have also led to better management of chronic disease. By including ancillary care, providers can increase cancer-screening rates and have the potential to decrease readmissions. Moreover, the addition of hospitalists and physician assistants can produce quality and efficiency outcomes that are commensurate with those enjoyed by traditional house staff. However, truly improving performance is difficult due to questions about how we define "quality," design care processes, measure inputs and outputs, develop multi-stakeholder collaborations, and develop incentive programs for delivering "good" care. There is a definite need for more thorough and robust studies of the impact of pay-for-performance programs, with the inclusion of ancillary care providers. Current research has not shown that there is not enough evidence to be able to determine what incentive structure might "work" in a particular health-care system. Payment systems will continue to evolve to incentivize greater collaboration among providers to yield higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future efforts will necessitate the need for strong physician leadership in helping to develop an optimal care team that is as patient-centered as possible. Technology adds dimensions of capability to making improvement real and systematic, as well as providing safer care with fewer errors and better adherence to proven best practices. The drive for quality with technology produces better clinical outcomes and maximizes efficiencies and financial metrics of organizational performance. Technology also adds capabilities for capturing key metrics and reporting them back to clinicians and others. Improved data transparency informs those who can actually do things differently to produce better results and outcomes. While health-care entities strive to focus on quality of care, measuring and reporting such care in a meaningful way are difficult. The best chance of improving overall care for patients is through the adoption of systems that improve coordination and continuity, not by health-care staff working harder. Only through collaboration and integration can health care incorporate a culture for improving quality and patient safety.</description><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Benchmarking</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Checklist</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Orthopedic Procedures - standards</subject><subject>Orthopedics - standards</subject><subject>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>World Health Organization</subject><issn>0021-9355</issn><issn>1535-1386</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kM2O0zAUhS0EYsrAjjXKkgUp98dpEnal4qejSgUG1pbr3lBDmnTshFF3PARPyJPg0oHVlc79dI70KfUUYUoIs5dXr6-up6spANR8T02w4CJHrmb31QSAMK-5KC7Uoxi_JURrKB-qC2KqmCuYqE8fR9v64Zj5LluHYdcfrGy9y67H8FXC8ffPX_MuW3aDhM4Ovu9sm32QEA_iBv9DXmXz9TxbBD94lz7LGEeJj9WDxrZRntzdS_Xl7ZvPi_f5av1uuZivckc167xBEotVtbWkUVeNlKw3mwasdUCS0roiRCZta-KCsHSuLopyK40tZxqYL9Xzc-8h9DdpdzB7H520re2kH6NBKhmLmmpI6Isz6kIfY5DGHILf23A0COZk0ZwsmpX5azHhz-6ax81etv_hf9oSoM_Abd8mNfF7O95KMDux7bA7lYCeEecEyIBAkKcENf8Bnlx8qg</recordid><startdate>20130102</startdate><enddate>20130102</enddate><creator>Saleh, Khaled J</creator><creator>Bozic, Kevin J</creator><creator>Graham, David B</creator><creator>Shaha, Steven H</creator><creator>Swiontkowski, Marc F</creator><creator>Wright, James G</creator><creator>Robinson, Brooke S</creator><creator>Novicoff, Wendy M</creator><general>Copyright by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130102</creationdate><title>Quality in Orthopaedic Surgery—An International Perspective: AOA Critical Issues</title><author>Saleh, Khaled J ; Bozic, Kevin J ; Graham, David B ; Shaha, Steven H ; Swiontkowski, Marc F ; Wright, James G ; Robinson, Brooke S ; Novicoff, Wendy M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2934-f12ea188da24148fe734bbf0aac02eda298211324a9235217cc9557defa764033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Benchmarking</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Checklist</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Orthopedic Procedures - standards</topic><topic>Orthopedics - standards</topic><topic>Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>World Health Organization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saleh, Khaled J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bozic, Kevin J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, David B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaha, Steven H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swiontkowski, Marc F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wright, James G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Brooke S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novicoff, Wendy M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saleh, Khaled J</au><au>Bozic, Kevin J</au><au>Graham, David B</au><au>Shaha, Steven H</au><au>Swiontkowski, Marc F</au><au>Wright, James G</au><au>Robinson, Brooke S</au><au>Novicoff, Wendy M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quality in Orthopaedic Surgery—An International Perspective: AOA Critical Issues</atitle><jtitle>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</jtitle><addtitle>J Bone Joint Surg Am</addtitle><date>2013-01-02</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e3</spage><epage>e3</epage><pages>e3-e3</pages><issn>0021-9355</issn><eissn>1535-1386</eissn><abstract>Quality is a hallmark of health care, although it is difficult to come to a consensus on who gets to define what "quality health care" is. Most health-care workers enter this field with the goal of improving the health of their patients (and the community), and while everyone tries to do the best job possible, we must continuously seek better methods and techniques for achieving better outcomes. The passion for continuous improvement is fundamental, but passion is not sufficient by itself. There is substantial opportunity to improve quality and reduce cost in health care. Multidisciplinary teams that include physicians, nurses, and other ancillary care providers have led to decreased waiting times to see specialists and have also led to better management of chronic disease. By including ancillary care, providers can increase cancer-screening rates and have the potential to decrease readmissions. Moreover, the addition of hospitalists and physician assistants can produce quality and efficiency outcomes that are commensurate with those enjoyed by traditional house staff. However, truly improving performance is difficult due to questions about how we define "quality," design care processes, measure inputs and outputs, develop multi-stakeholder collaborations, and develop incentive programs for delivering "good" care. There is a definite need for more thorough and robust studies of the impact of pay-for-performance programs, with the inclusion of ancillary care providers. Current research has not shown that there is not enough evidence to be able to determine what incentive structure might "work" in a particular health-care system. Payment systems will continue to evolve to incentivize greater collaboration among providers to yield higher-quality, lower-cost care. Future efforts will necessitate the need for strong physician leadership in helping to develop an optimal care team that is as patient-centered as possible. Technology adds dimensions of capability to making improvement real and systematic, as well as providing safer care with fewer errors and better adherence to proven best practices. The drive for quality with technology produces better clinical outcomes and maximizes efficiencies and financial metrics of organizational performance. Technology also adds capabilities for capturing key metrics and reporting them back to clinicians and others. Improved data transparency informs those who can actually do things differently to produce better results and outcomes. While health-care entities strive to focus on quality of care, measuring and reporting such care in a meaningful way are difficult. The best chance of improving overall care for patients is through the adoption of systems that improve coordination and continuity, not by health-care staff working harder. Only through collaboration and integration can health care incorporate a culture for improving quality and patient safety.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Copyright by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated</pub><pmid>23283380</pmid><doi>10.2106/JBJS.L.00093</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-9355
ispartof Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2013-01, Vol.95 (1), p.e3-e3
issn 0021-9355
1535-1386
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1273159290
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects
Australia
Benchmarking
Canada
Checklist
Humans
Orthopedic Procedures - standards
Orthopedics - standards
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - standards
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Quality Improvement
Quality of Health Care
United Kingdom
United States
World Health Organization
title Quality in Orthopaedic Surgery—An International Perspective: AOA Critical Issues
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T00%3A48%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quality%20in%20Orthopaedic%20Surgery%E2%80%94An%20International%20Perspective:%20AOA%20Critical%20Issues&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20bone%20and%20joint%20surgery.%20American%20volume&rft.au=Saleh,%20Khaled%20J&rft.date=2013-01-02&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e3&rft.epage=e3&rft.pages=e3-e3&rft.issn=0021-9355&rft.eissn=1535-1386&rft_id=info:doi/10.2106/JBJS.L.00093&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1273159290%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1273159290&rft_id=info:pmid/23283380&rfr_iscdi=true