Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 3/2021

01-03-2021 | Pancreatic Surgery | Review Article

Benchmarking Performance in Pancreatic Surgery: a Systematic Review of Published Quality Metrics

Authors: Cindy Ou, Michaela Rektorysova, Bushra Othman, John A. Windsor, Sanjay Pandanaboyana, Benjamin P. T. Loveday

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 3/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pancreatic surgery is performed in relatively few centres. There are validated quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery, although it remains unclear how published benchmarks compare with each other. This study aimed to systematically review published literature to summarise metrics that define quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery.

Method

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was undertaken until June 2019. Articles that developed or validated published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery were included. Benchmarks were classified into three domains using the Donabedian framework, and their quality assessed using the AIRE Instrument.

Results

Nineteen studies included 55 quality metrics, of which 8 developed new metrics, and 11 studies validated previously published metrics. The methodology of metric development was either expert opinion-driven or data-driven. All metrics demonstrated moderate quality scores. There was partial agreement in some metrics (e.g. < 10 h total operative duration), but lack of consensus for most others (e.g. lymph node yield ≥ 10, ≥ 12, ≥ 15, ≥ 16). No metrics related to patient reported outcomes.

Conclusions

Published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery predominantly arise from eight studies, with heterogeneity in how the metrics were developed. There was not consensus for all metrics. Metrics need to be reviewed as new data emerge, technologies develop and opinions change.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
8.
go back to reference Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Characteristics of clinical indicators. Qual Rev Bull. 1989;11:330–339. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Characteristics of clinical indicators. Qual Rev Bull. 1989;11:330–339.
9.
go back to reference Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Lillemoe KD, Talamonti MS, Ko CY, Pancreatic cancer quality indicator development expert panel, American College of Surgeons. Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the united states based on formally developed quality indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(12):848-859. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp107. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Lillemoe KD, Talamonti MS, Ko CY, Pancreatic cancer quality indicator development expert panel, American College of Surgeons. Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the united states based on formally developed quality indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(12):848-859. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​jnci/​djp107.
11.
go back to reference Abbott DE, Martin G, Kooby DA, et al. Perception is reality: Quality metrics in pancreas surgery - a central pancreas consortium (CPC) analysis of 1399 patients. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(5):462-469.CrossRef Abbott DE, Martin G, Kooby DA, et al. Perception is reality: Quality metrics in pancreas surgery - a central pancreas consortium (CPC) analysis of 1399 patients. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18(5):462-469.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(3):Suppl:166-206. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(3):Suppl:166-206.
21.
go back to reference Maharaj AD, Ioannou L, Croagh D, et al. Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: A modified delphi consensus. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21(4):444-455.CrossRef Maharaj AD, Ioannou L, Croagh D, et al. Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: A modified delphi consensus. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21(4):444-455.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Sabater L, Mora I, Gámez Del Castillo, J. M., et al. Outcome quality standards in pancreatic oncologic surgery in spain. Cir Esp. 2018;96(6):342-351.CrossRef Sabater L, Mora I, Gámez Del Castillo, J. M., et al. Outcome quality standards in pancreatic oncologic surgery in spain. Cir Esp. 2018;96(6):342-351.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ. Measuring the quality of surgical care: Structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(4):626-632.CrossRef Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ. Measuring the quality of surgical care: Structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(4):626-632.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference de Cruppé W, Ohmann C, Blum K, Geraedts M. Evaluating compulsory minimum volume standards in germany: How many hospitals were compliant in 2004? BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:165-165.CrossRef de Cruppé W, Ohmann C, Blum K, Geraedts M. Evaluating compulsory minimum volume standards in germany: How many hospitals were compliant in 2004? BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:165-165.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Fitzgerald TL, Seymore NM, Kachare SD, Zervos EE, Wong JH. Measuring the impact of multidisciplinary care on quality for pancreatic surgery: Transition to a focused, very high-volume program. Am Surg. 2013;79(8):775-780.CrossRef Fitzgerald TL, Seymore NM, Kachare SD, Zervos EE, Wong JH. Measuring the impact of multidisciplinary care on quality for pancreatic surgery: Transition to a focused, very high-volume program. Am Surg. 2013;79(8):775-780.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Ongchin M, Steve J, Bartlett D, et al. Quantity and quality: A high volume pancreatic centers adherence to highly validated quality measures of pancreatic cancer care. HPB (Oxford). 2014;166(Suppl 1):95. Ongchin M, Steve J, Bartlett D, et al. Quantity and quality: A high volume pancreatic centers adherence to highly validated quality measures of pancreatic cancer care. HPB (Oxford). 2014;166(Suppl 1):95.
31.
go back to reference van Rijssen LB, van der Geest, L. G., Bollen TL, et al. National compliance to an evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline on pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma. Pancreatology. 2016;16(1):133-137.CrossRef van Rijssen LB, van der Geest, L. G., Bollen TL, et al. National compliance to an evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline on pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma. Pancreatology. 2016;16(1):133-137.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Slipak H, Dudash M, Fluck M, et al. PT134. lymph node harvest as a measure of quality and effect on overall survival in pancreas cancer: A national cancer database assessment. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2018;25(Suppl 1):S126-S127. Slipak H, Dudash M, Fluck M, et al. PT134. lymph node harvest as a measure of quality and effect on overall survival in pancreas cancer: A national cancer database assessment. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2018;25(Suppl 1):S126-S127.
34.
go back to reference van Rijssen LB, Koerkamp BG, Zwart MJ, et al. Nationwide prospective audit of pancreatic surgery: Design, accuracy, and outcomes of the dutch pancreatic cancer audit. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(10):919-926.CrossRef van Rijssen LB, Koerkamp BG, Zwart MJ, et al. Nationwide prospective audit of pancreatic surgery: Design, accuracy, and outcomes of the dutch pancreatic cancer audit. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19(10):919-926.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new leapfrog standards: Effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135(6):569-575.CrossRef Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new leapfrog standards: Effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135(6):569-575.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Maa J, Gosnell JE, Gibbs VC, Harris HW. Exporting excellence for whipple resection to refine the leapfrog initiative. J Surg Res. 2007;138(2):189-197.CrossRef Maa J, Gosnell JE, Gibbs VC, Harris HW. Exporting excellence for whipple resection to refine the leapfrog initiative. J Surg Res. 2007;138(2):189-197.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Vuong B, Dehal A, Uppal A, et al. What are the most significant cost and value drivers for pancreatic resection in an integrated healthcare system? J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(1):45-53.CrossRef Vuong B, Dehal A, Uppal A, et al. What are the most significant cost and value drivers for pancreatic resection in an integrated healthcare system? J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(1):45-53.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Benchmarking Performance in Pancreatic Surgery: a Systematic Review of Published Quality Metrics
Authors
Cindy Ou
Michaela Rektorysova
Bushra Othman
John A. Windsor
Sanjay Pandanaboyana
Benjamin P. T. Loveday
Publication date
01-03-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-020-04827-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 3/2021 Go to the issue