Surgeon Scorecard Research Articles

Solutions for Reducing Perioperative Supply Waste.

Health care costs continue to increase in the United States, and unused perioperative supplies can contribute to both these costs and increased waste. Reducing perioperative waste can decrease hospital costs and promote sustainability. Perioperative leaders can consider a variety of solutions to decrease unused perioperative supplies, including streamlining and standardizing surgical packs, implementing surgeon scorecards and a surgical receipt system, and updating surgeon preference cards. The available literature does not provide data on waste reduction for all listed solutions; however, these initiatives have had positive financial effects for hospitals through either direct cost reduction or cost avoidance. Although the cost of implementation may vary among hospitals, streamlining surgical packs (including custom packs) appears to be an effective solution with a lower cost than other strategies, and avoids the wasting of opened supplies that are not needed.

Surgical appropriateness nudges: Developing behavioral science nudges to integrate appropriateness criteria into the decision making of spine surgeons.

Substantial variation exists in surgeon decision making. In response, multiple specialty societies have established criteria for the appropriate use of spine surgery. Yet few strategies exist to facilitate routine use of appropriateness criteria by surgeons. Behavioral science nudges are increasingly used to enhance decision making by clinicians. We sought to design "surgical appropriateness nudges" to support routine use of appropriateness criteria for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. The work reflected Stage I of the NIH Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development and involved an iterative, multi-method approach, emphasizing qualitative methods. Study sites included two large referral centers for spine surgery. We recruited spine surgeons from both sites for two rounds of focus groups. To produce preliminary nudge prototypes, we examined sources of variation in surgeon decision making (Focus Group 1) and synthesized existing knowledge of appropriateness criteria, behavioral science nudge frameworks, electronic tools, and the surgical workflow. We refined nudge prototypes via feedback from content experts, site leaders, and spine surgeons (Focus Group 2). Concurrently, we collected data on surgical practices and outcomes at study sites. We pilot tested the refined nudge prototypes among spine surgeons, and surveyed them about nudge applicability, acceptability, and feasibility (scale 1-5, 5 = strongly agree). Fifteen surgeons participated in focus groups, giving substantive input and feedback on nudge design. Refined nudge prototypes included: individualized surgeon score cards (frameworks: descriptive social norms/peer comparison/feedback), online calculators embedded in the EHR (decision aid/mapping), a multispecialty case conference (injunctive norms/social influence), and a preoperative check (reminders/ salience of information/ accountable justification). Two nudges (score cards, preop checks) incorporated data on surgeon practices and outcomes. Six surgeons pilot tested the refined nudges, and five completed the survey (83%). The overall mean score was 4.0 (standard deviation [SD] 0.5), with scores of 3.9 (SD 0.5) for applicability, 4.1 (SD 0.5) for acceptability, and 4.0 (SD 0.5), for feasibility. Conferences had the highest scores 4.3 (SD 0.6) and calculators the lowest 3.9 (SD 0.4). Behavioral science nudges might be a promising strategy for facilitating incorporation of appropriateness criteria into the surgical workflow of spine surgeons. Future stages in intervention development will test whether these surgical appropriateness nudges can be implemented in practice and influence surgical decision making.

Complications After Inpatient Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Effect of Surgeon Experience, Procedure Volume, and Other Surgeon-Based Characteristics.

Previous studies have examined how factors such as gender, education, type of training (MD or DO), and experience of the treating surgeon affect patient outcomes. We investigated patient complications after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on surgeon characteristics. A Medicare database was used to identify surgeon-specific data. The main outcome measure was the adjusted complication rates (ACR) for individual surgeons as reported by the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard. Surgeon gender, type of training, medical school rank, years since graduation, procedure volume, and teaching status of the primary hospital affiliation were assessed for any association with increased ACR using logistic regression analysis. We explored the associations among procedure volume, years of experience, and ACR using Spearman correlation. 1107 predominantly male (94.6%) surgeons were included. 94.4% were MDs and 34.5% were affiliated with teaching hospitals. Mean length of practice was 24 ± 9years, and median surgeon procedure volume was 28 (IQR = 23, 37). Overall median ACR was 4.3%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that surgeon gender (P = .71), medical school rank, type of training (P = .68), or hospital affiliation (P = .77) did not have a significant impact on ACR. Increased surgeons' years in practice (r = -.028, P = .35) and increased surgeon procedure volume (r = -.021, P = .49) were negatively associated with increased ACR. Surgeon gender, type of training, medical school rank, or hospital affiliation had no impact on complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgeon experience and procedure volume may have clinical implications for patient outcomes. Further studies to elucidate factors associated with surgeon quality and patient outcomes are necessary.

Cost Disclosure of Surgeon "Scorecards": Effects on Operating Room Costs for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: Rising health care costs, coupled with an emphasis on cost containment, continue to gain importance. Surgeon cost scorecards developed to track case-based expenditures can help surgeons compare themselves with their peers and identify areas of potential quality improvement. Purpose: We sought to investigate what effect surgeon scorecards had on operating room (OR) costs in orthopedic surgery. Methods: Our hospital distributed OR cost scorecards to 4 adult reconstruction fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons beginning in 2012. The average direct per-case supply cost of procedures was calculated quarterly and collected over a 5-year period, and each surgeon's data were compared with that of their peers. All 4 surgeons were made aware of the costs of other surgeons at the 2-year mark. The initial 2 years of data was compared with that of the final 2 years. Results: The average direct per-case supply cost ranged from $4955 to $5271 for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and $5469 to $5898 for total hip arthroplasty (THA) during the initial 2-year period. After implementing disclosures, the costs for TKA and THA, respectively, ranged from $4266 to $4515 (14% annual cost savings) and from $5073 to $5727 (5% annual cost savings); 3 of the 4 surgeons said that cost transparency altered their practice. Conclusion: Our comparison suggests that orthopedic surgeons' participation in a program of operative cost disclosure may be useful to them; we found a possible association with reduced per-case costs for TKA and THA at our institution over a 5-year period. More rigorous study that incorporates the effects of the scorecards on patient outcomes is warranted.

AORN Position Statement on Environmental Responsibility

<scp>AORN</scp> Position Statement on Environmental Responsibility

Charting a Roadmap for Value-based Surgery in the Post-pandemic Era.

Charting a Roadmap for Value-based Surgery in the Post-pandemic Era.

Can Public Reporting Cure Healthcare? The Role of Quality Transparency in Improving Patient–Provider Alignment

In the past two decades, government and private organizations have ramped up efforts to measure and publicly report clinical outcomes, a practice known as “public reporting.” For example, in 2005 the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched the website Hospital Compare with share outcome data. Other sites, including CalHospitalCompare.org , the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard, the Compare Hospitals site by the Leapfrog Group, and the hospital-rating websites of Healthgrades, Consumer Reports, Yelp, and U.S. News, have provided similar information. Despite making more and more information available, empirical evidence suggests that the reality of public reporting has fallen short of the promise. In “Can Public Reporting Cure Healthcare? The Role of Quality Transparency in Improving Patient-Provider Alignment” S. Saghafian and W. J. Hopp use a model of the impact of quality transparency via public reporting to generate insights into why previous efforts have been less than fully successful and to suggest ways in which future efforts can be more effective.

Association of Social Media Presence with Online Physician Ratings and Surgical Volume Among California Urologists: Observational Study.

BackgroundUrologists are increasingly using various forms of social media to promote their professional practice and attract patients. Currently, the association of social media on a urologists’ practice is unknown.ObjectivesWe aimed to determine whether social media presence is associated with higher online physician ratings and surgical volume among California urologists.MethodsWe sampled 195 California urologists who were rated on the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard website. We obtained information on professional use of online social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, blog, and YouTube) in 2014 and defined social media presence as a binary variable (yes/no) for use of an individual platform or any platform. We collected data on online physician ratings across websites (Yelp, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMD, and UCompareHealthcare) and calculated the mean physician ratings across all websites as an average weighted by the number of reviews. We then collected data on surgical volume for radical prostatectomy from the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard website. We used multivariable linear regression to determine the association of social media presence with physician ratings and surgical volume.ResultsAmong our sample of 195 urologists, 62 (32%) were active on some form of social media. Social media presence on any platform was associated with a slightly higher mean physician rating (β coefficient: .3; 95% CI 0.03-0.5; P=.05). However, only YouTube was associated with higher physician ratings (β coefficient: .3; 95% CI 0.2-0.5; P=.04). Social media presence on YouTube was strongly associated with increased radical prostatectomy volume (β coefficient: 7.4; 95% CI 0.3-14.5; P=.04). Social media presence on any platform was associated with increased radical prostatectomy volume (β coefficient: 7.1; 95% CI –0.7 to 14.2; P=.05).ConclusionsUrologists’ use of social media, especially YouTube, is associated with a modest increase in physician ratings and prostatectomy volume. Although a majority of urologists are not currently active on social media, patients may be more inclined to endorse and choose subspecialist urologists who post videos of their surgical technique.

A Surgeon Scorecard Is Associated with Improved Value in Elective Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Despite increasing interest in total joint arthroplasty registries, evidence of the impact of physician-level performance on the value of care provided to patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of an unblinded orthopaedic surgeon-specific value scorecard in improving patient outcomes and reducing hospital costs. We retrospectively analyzed patient outcomes and hospital costs associated with total joint arthroplasties before and 9 months after the introduction of a Surgeon Value Scorecard at an urban tertiary care center. From August 2016 to May 2017, orthopaedic surgeons received an unblinded monthly Surgeon Value Scorecard summarizing a rolling 6-month view of results by surgeon for patients attributed to Diagnosis Related Group 470 (major lower-extremity arthroplasty without comorbidity or complication). Prior to implementation, surgeons were educated on the scorecard and participated in the development of a document outlining the definition and calculation of included metrics. Scorecard metrics were grouped into 5 categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient outcomes (for example, length of stay, discharge disposition, readmissions), patient experience, financial, and operational (for example, operative times). Financial (cost) measures and patient outcomes were selected as the key performance indicators analyzed in this study. Continuous variables were analyzed using the t test when a normal distribution was assumed and using Mann-Whitney tests when a non-normal distribution was assumed. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. After 9 months of unblinded Surgeon Value Scorecard distribution, the mean total costs for total joint arthroplasties decreased by 8.7%, from $17,996 to $16,426 (p < 0.001). The mean total direct variable costs decreased by 17.1% from $10,945 to $9,070 (p < 0.001), and implant costs decreased by 5.3% (p < 0.001). Length of stay also decreased by 0.2 day to 1.7 days (p < 0.001), and, although there was improvement in the home-discharge rate, 30-day readmission rate, and 90-day readmission rate, the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). The implementation of a surgeon-specific value scorecard for lower-extremity joint arthroplasties was associated with reduced total and direct variable hospital costs, reduced implant costs, decreased variation in costs, and reduced postoperative length of stay, without compromising clinical outcomes. Sharing unblinded clinical and financial outcomes with surgeons may promote a culture of shared accountability and may empower surgeons to improve value-based decision-making in care delivery.

Quality improvement through public reporting: The surgeon scorecard – are we there yet?

As national healthcare reform continues to place greater emphasis on providing high value care, measures designed to track clinical performance remain relatively overlooked. To that extent, several organizations have attempted to create objective grading systems to evaluate orthopaedic surgeon quality and performance. While attempting to address these issues, ProPublica’s Surgeon Scorecard has provoked national debate among patient advocates and healthcare providers. The methodology behind the Scorecard was developed at the Harvard School of Public Health with an aim to provide a more robust means of comparing surgical performance and outcomes for patients and healthcare organizations. Currently, the Scorecard assesses eight elective surgical procedures, including total knee and hip arthroplasty, through the use of the Medicare Claims Dataset. The impact of the Scorecard on orthopaedic practice has yet to be established. In this discussion, we analyze the Scorecard from the perspective of various stakeholders to identify its benefits and shortcomings, as well as offer direction for further improvement.

Can Surgeon Demographic Factors Predict Postoperative Complication Rates After Elective Spinal Fusion?

Retrospective cohort. Determine whether surgeon demographic factors influence postoperative complication rates after elective spine fusion procedures. Surgeon demographic factors have been shown to impact decision making in the management of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Complication rates are frequently reported outcome measurements used to evaluate surgical treatments, quality-of-care, and determine health care reimbursements. However, there are few studies investigating the association between surgeon demographic factors and complication outcomes after elective spine fusions. A database of US spine surgeons with corresponding postoperative complications data after elective spine fusions was compiled utilizing public data provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (2011-2013) and ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard (2009-2013). Demographic data for each surgeon was collected and consisted of: surgical specialty (orthopedic vs. neurosurgery), years in practice, practice setting (private vs. academic), type of medical degree (MD vs. DO), medical school location (United States vs. foreign), sex, and geographic region of practice. General linear mixed models using a Beta distribution with a logit link and pairwise comparison with post hoc Tukey-Kramer were used to assess the relationship between surgeon demographics and complication rates. 2110 US-practicing spine surgeons who performed spine fusions on 125,787 Medicare patients from 2011 to 2013 met inclusion criteria for this study. None of the surgeon demographic factors analyzed were found to significantly affect overall complication rates in lumbar (posterior approach) or cervical spine fusion. Publicly available complication rates for individual spine surgeons are being utilized by hospital systems and patients to assess aptitude and gauge expectations. The increasing demand for transparency will likely lead to emphasis of these statistics to improve outcomes. We conclude that none of the surgeon demographic factors analyzed in this study are associated with differences in overall complications rates in patients undergoing elective spine fusion as published by the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard. Level 3.

Does the ranking of surgeons in a publicly available online platform correlate with objective outcomes?

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of public reporting in health care, especially from private vendors, remains an issue of debate. The authors investigated the association of the publicly reported physician complication rates in an online platform with real-world adverse outcomes of the same physicians for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS The authors performed a cohort study involving physicians performing posterior lumbar fusions between 2009 and 2013 who were registered in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. This cohort was merged with publicly available data over the same time period from ProPublica, a private company. Mixed-effects multivariable regression models were used to investigate the association of publicly available complication rates with the rate of discharge to a rehabilitation facility, length of stay, mortality, and hospitalization charges for the same surgeons. RESULTS During the selected study period, there were 8,457 patients in New York State who underwent posterior lumbar fusion performed by the 56 surgeons represented in the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard over the same time period. Using a mixed-effects multivariable regression model, the authors demonstrated that publicly reported physician-level complication rates were not associated with the rate of discharge to a rehabilitation facility (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.31), length of stay (adjusted difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.2), mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49-1.55), and hospitalization charges (adjusted difference $18,735, 95% CI -$59,177 to $96,647). Similarly, no association was observed when utilizing propensity score-adjusted models, and when restricting the cohort to a predefined subgroup of Medicare patients. CONCLUSIONS After merging a comprehensive all-payer posterior lumbar fusion cohort in New York State with data from the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard over the same time period, the authors observed no association of publicly available physician complication rates with objective outcomes.

Does the ranking of surgeons in a publicly available online platform correlate with objective outcomes?

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of public reporting in health care, especially from private vendors, remains an issue of debate. The authors investigated the association of the publicly reported physician complication rates in an online platform with real-world adverse outcomes of the same physicians for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS The authors performed a cohort study involving physicians performing posterior lumbar fusions between 2009 and 2013 who were registered in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. This cohort was merged with publicly available data over the same time period from ProPublica, a private company. Mixed-effects multivariable regression models were used to investigate the association of publicly available complication rates with the rate of discharge to a rehabilitation facility, length of stay, mortality, and hospitalization charges for the same surgeons. RESULTS During the selected study period, there were 8,457 patients in New York State who underwent posterior lumbar fusion performed by the 56 surgeons represented in the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard over the same time period. Using a mixed-effects multivariable regression model, the authors demonstrated that publicly reported physician-level complication rates were not associated with the rate of discharge to a rehabilitation facility (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.31), length of stay (adjusted difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.2), mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49-1.55), and hospitalization charges (adjusted difference $18,735, 95% CI -$59,177 to $96,647). Similarly, no association was observed when utilizing propensity score-adjusted models, and when restricting the cohort to a predefined subgroup of Medicare patients. CONCLUSIONS After merging a comprehensive all-payer posterior lumbar fusion cohort in New York State with data from the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard over the same time period, the authors observed no association of publicly available physician complication rates with objective outcomes.

Surgical Cost Disclosure May Reduce Operating Room Expenditures.

Health care expenditures are rising in the United States. Recent policy changes are attempting to reduce spending through the development of value-based payment systems that rely heavily on cost transparency. This study was conducted to investigate whether cost disclosure influences surgeons to reduce operating room expenditures. Beginning in 2012, surgeon scorecards were distributed at a regional health care system. The scorecard reported the actual direct supply cost per case for a specific procedure and compared each surgeon's data with those of other surgeons in the same subspecialty. Rotator cuff repair was chosen for analysis. Actual direct supply cost per case was calculated quarterly and collected over a 2-year period. Surgeons were given a questionnaire to determine their interest in the scorecard. Actual direct supply cost per rotator cuff repair procedure decreased by $269 during the study period. A strong correlation (R2=0.77) between introduction of the scorecards and cost containment was observed. During the study period, a total of $39,831 was saved. Of the surgeons who were queried, 89% were interested in the scorecard and 56% altered their practice as a result. Disclosure of surgical costs may be an effective way to control operating room spending. The findings suggest that providing physicians with knowledge about their surgical charges can alter per-case expenditures. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):e269-e274.].

Review of “Evaluation of the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard ‘Adjusted Complication Rate’ Measure Specifications” by Ban KA, Cohen ME, Ko CY, Friedberg MW, Stulberg JJ, Zhou L, Hall BL, Hoyt DB, Bilimoria KY in Ann Surg 264

Review of “Evaluation of the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard ‘Adjusted Complication Rate’ Measure Specifications” by Ban KA, Cohen ME, Ko CY, Friedberg MW, Stulberg JJ, Zhou L, Hall BL, Hoyt DB, Bilimoria KY in Ann Surg 264

Disruptive Innovation in Neurosurgical Outcomes Research: The Impact of Big Data, Predictive Analytics, and Wearable Technology

Background: The value agenda in healthcare has created legislative reform, merit-based reimbursement systems, public reporting of surgeon scorecards, and patient-centered neurosurgical outcomes tracking. Though technological innovations for the intra-operative experience continue to abound, technological advances such as artificial intelligence, big data, and wearable technology have yet to become standard tools for outcomes measures in neurosurgery. Objective: The purpose of this work was to review existing tools for outcomes research in neurosurgery and to characterize the disruptive innovation created by artificial intelligence, big data, and wearable technology. Methods: Gold standards for neurosurgical patient-reported outcomes were compared to ongoing work in our center as well as major developments in the fields of mobile health, computer science, and health informatics. Results: The gold standards for neurosurgical outcomes measures (pain scale, Oswestry Disability Index, Euro-Qol 5D, Short Form Health Survey, etc.) provide limited information on time-dependent, longitudinal patient recovery outside of the clinical setting. Our work with smartphone-enabled passively collected data allows for continuous, real-time monitoring of 9 different data streams generating over 1 million data points per day per patient. Artificial intelligence capabilities, including natural language processing and machine learning, quantify and digitize patient quality of life from electronic medical records, audio recordings, and free text notes. Quantification of patient outcomes is further aided by the creation of wearable physiological sensors specific to neurosurgery, such as a serum sodium sensing wearable with WiFi communication capabilities to prevent complications and readmissions of delayed symptomatic hyponatremia post-transsphenoidal surgery. Conclusions: Systems-level risk adjustment, high-value care, and real-time tracking of functional recovery is enabled by passively collected data. The future of outcomes measures in neurosurgery requires the translation of validated, gold standard assessments into the modern era of big data, artificial intelligence, and wearable technology. [iproc 2016;2(1):e10]

Association Between Surgeon Scorecard Use and Operating Room Costs

Despite the significant contribution of surgical spending to health care costs, most surgeons are unaware of their operating room costs. To examine the association between providing surgeons with individualized cost feedback and surgical supply costs in the operating room. The OR Surgical Cost Reduction (OR SCORE) project was a single-health system, multihospital, multidepartmental prospective controlled study in an urban academic setting. Intervention participants were attending surgeons in orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, and neurological surgery (n = 63). Control participants were attending surgeons in cardiothoracic surgery, general surgery, vascular surgery, pediatric surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology (n = 186). From January 1 to December 31, 2015, each surgeon in the intervention group received standardized monthly scorecards showing the median surgical supply direct cost for each procedure type performed in the prior month compared with the surgeon's baseline (July 1, 2012, to November 30, 2014) and compared with all surgeons at the institution performing the same procedure at baseline. All surgical departments were eligible for a financial incentive if they met a 5% cost reduction goal. The primary outcome was each group's median surgical supply cost per case. Secondary outcome measures included total departmental surgical supply costs, case mix index-adjusted median surgical supply costs, patient outcomes (30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and discharge status), and surgeon responses to a postintervention study-specific health care value survey. The median surgical supply direct costs per case decreased 6.54% in the intervention group, from $1398 (interquartile range [IQR], $316-$5181) (10 637 cases) in 2014 to $1307 (IQR, $319-$5037) (11 820 cases) in 2015. In contrast, the median surgical supply direct cost increased 7.42% in the control group, from $712 (IQR, $202-$1602) (16 441 cases) in 2014 to $765 (IQR, $233-$1719) (17 227 cases) in 2015. This decrease represents a total savings of $836 147 in the intervention group during the 1-year study. After controlling for surgeon, department, patient demographics, and clinical indicators in a mixed-effects model, there was a 9.95% (95% CI, 3.55%-15.93%; P = .003) surgical supply cost decrease in the intervention group over 1 year. Patient outcomes were equivalent or improved after the intervention, and surgeons who received scorecards reported higher levels of cost awareness on the health care value survey compared with controls. Cost feedback to surgeons, combined with a small departmental financial incentive, was associated with significantly reduced surgical supply costs, without negatively affecting patient outcomes.

Evaluation of the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard "Adjusted Complication Rate" Measure Specifications.

The ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard is the first nationwide, multispecialty public reporting of individual surgeon outcomes. However, ProPublica's use of a previously undescribed outcome measure (composite of in-hospital mortality or 30-day related readmission) and inclusion of only inpatients have been questioned. Our objectives were to (1) determine the proportion of cases excluded by ProPublica's specifications, (2) assess the proportion of inpatient complications excluded from ProPublica's measure, and (3) examine the validity of ProPublica's outcome measure by comparing performance on the measure to well-established postoperative outcome measures. Using ACS-NSQIP data (2012-2014) for 8 ProPublica procedures and for All Operations, the proportion of cases meeting all ProPublica inclusion criteria was determined. We assessed the proportion of complications occurring inpatient, and thus not considered by ProPublica's measure. Finally, we compared risk-adjusted performance based on ProPublica's measure specifications to established ACS-NSQIP outcome measure performance (eg, death/serious morbidity, mortality). ProPublica's inclusion criteria resulted in elimination of 82% of all operations from assessment (range: 42% for total knee arthroplasty to 96% for laparoscopic cholecystectomy). For all ProPublica operations combined, 84% of complications occur during inpatient hospitalization (range: 61% for TURP to 88% for total hip arthroplasty), and are thus missed by the ProPublica measure. Hospital-level performance on the ProPublica measure correlated weakly with established complication measures, but correlated strongly with readmission (R = 0.834, P < 0.001). ProPublica's outcome measure specifications exclude 82% of cases, miss 84% of postoperative complications, and correlate poorly with well-established postoperative outcomes. Thus, the validity of the ProPublica Surgeon Scorecard is questionable.

Evaluating Surgeon Scorecards

Evaluating Surgeon Scorecards

MP37-08 MISATTRIBUTION ERRORS IN UROLOGIC PROCEDURES FROM THE PROPUBLICA SURGEON SCORECARD

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making IV1 Apr 2016MP37-08 MISATTRIBUTION ERRORS IN UROLOGIC PROCEDURES FROM THE PROPUBLICA SURGEON SCORECARD Young Suk Kwon, Seonghyun Kang, Wei Wang, Nicholas Farber, Kushan Radadia, Paul Lee, Jongmyung Kim, Jeong Hee Hong, and Isaac Kim Young Suk KwonYoung Suk Kwon More articles by this author , Seonghyun KangSeonghyun Kang More articles by this author , Wei WangWei Wang More articles by this author , Nicholas FarberNicholas Farber More articles by this author , Kushan RadadiaKushan Radadia More articles by this author , Paul LeePaul Lee More articles by this author , Jongmyung KimJongmyung Kim More articles by this author , Jeong Hee HongJeong Hee Hong More articles by this author , and Isaac KimIsaac Kim More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1685AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The ProPublica published a surgeon scorecard displaying adjusted complication rates of nearly 17000 surgeons in the United States after analyzing Medicare billing data of eight surgical procedures. While methodological issues are controversial and the accuracy of this online tool remains to be determined, a growing number of people rely on the information presented in this publically available database. We have examined the surgeon scorecard to evaluate its accuracy and consistency with respect to urologists and urologic procedures. METHODS Data from 2009 through 2013 were queried from the ProPublica surgeon scorecard (https://projects.propublica.org/surgeons). The surgeons were categorized into two groups based on the number of performed cases (# of case ≥20 vs. <20) as presented in the scorecard. The specialties of providers who performed prostatectomy in the scorecard were verified using affiliated hospital homepage, Healthgrades (http://www.healthgrades.com), and Vitals (http://www.vitals.com). Any identified non-urologists were confirmed using at least two different sources. Similarly, all surgical procedures performed by the list of urologists provided by the scorecard were reviewed. RESULTS The total number of providers performing prostatectomy was 3040, including 972 who performed ≥20 cases, 2072 who performed <20 cases, and 4 providers who were erroneously counted twice in both categories. No errors were found for surgeons who performed ≥20 cases. However, for providers who performed <20 cases, 79 providers out of 2072 (3.81%) were non-urologists who performed prostatectomy while 38 out of 2702 (1.83%) were urologists performing non-urologic procedures based on the surgeon scorecard (table 1). CONCLUSIONS While convenient and easily accessible, ProPublica surgeon scorecard contains some misattribution errors that may inevitably compromise overall reliability of the data. While the database is updated periodically, it is advisable for the public to take caution when interpreting data and selecting surgeons based on the ProPublica surgeon scorecard. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e499-e500 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Young Suk Kwon More articles by this author Seonghyun Kang More articles by this author Wei Wang More articles by this author Nicholas Farber More articles by this author Kushan Radadia More articles by this author Paul Lee More articles by this author Jongmyung Kim More articles by this author Jeong Hee Hong More articles by this author Isaac Kim More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...