The ASBS Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence program: a blueprint for quality improvement.

Surgical Review Corporation, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (Impact Factor: 4.94). 09/2006; 2(5):497-503; discussion 503. DOI: 10.1016/j.soard.2006.07.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Variations in the techniques of bariatric surgery, coupled with the lack of a common database, has led to variable and, sometimes negative, outcomes from bariatric surgery. Thus, in November 2003, the American Society for Bariatric Surgery established Surgical Review Corporation (SRC) as an independent nonprofit entity for quality control of bariatric surgery and as a resource for data collection and analysis.
In November 2003, the leadership of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery founded SRC as an independent nonprofit entity for quality control of bariatric surgery and as resource for research. A national set of standards for the Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence program was developed using a meta-analysis of the relevant published English language data, a consensus conference at Georgetown University, and participation by stakeholders from industry, third-party payors, and malpractice carriers. A software program was developed to provide uniformity in data collection and ease of analysis.
SRC developed standards that have been accepted by the bariatric surgical community and put in place. A system was developed for the designation of two levels for the centers, provisional and full. The growth of the Centers of Excellence program has been rapid. At present, 135 hospitals and 265 surgeons have achieved full approval. The centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have recognized the program. On the basis of the reports of 55,567 patients from the first 176 applicants for full approval and confirmed by SRC during site inspections, the 90-day operative mortality rate was 0.35%.
The first phase of development has gone well. Future steps include the development of a network of bariatric physicians and the development of a consortium for research.

  • Source
    Open Medicine 01/2014; DOI:10.1177/2050312114530917
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Because of small sample sizes and low event rates, risk-adjusted surgical outcomes often do not meet reliability benchmarks for distinguishing hospital performance. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether these measures may still be useful for predicting future hospital surgical performance. We used national Medicare data to analyze patients undergoing colectomy from 2007 to 2010 (n=462,959 patients). We first quantified 2007-2008 outcome reliability (ability to differentiate quality differences) and ranked hospitals based on their 2007-2008 risk-adjusted outcome rates. To assess the ability of adjusted outcomes to predict true performance, we evaluated future (2009-2010) outcomes across quintiles of past performance. We then systematically sampled 2007-2008 cases to evaluate performance prediction when hospitals' past performance was measured with progressively lower reliability levels. Outcomes in 2007-2008 were good predictors of outcomes in the next 2 years (2009-2010), but predictive strength depended upon reliability. With progressive sampling of 2007-2008 caseloads, outcome reliability and predictive strength decreased. With 100% sampling of 2007-2008 caseloads, the worst versus best hospital quintile based on past performance had 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.44-1.60] times the odds of mortality and 1.50 (95% CI, 1.44-1.56) times the odds of complications in 2009-2010. With 10% sampling, outcome reliability was well below commonly accepted benchmarks, but the worst quintile of hospitals in 2007-2008 still had 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) times the odds of mortality and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.21) times the odds of complications in 2009-2010 compared with the best quintile of hospitals. Even at very low reliability levels, risk-adjusted outcome measures may distinguish best and worst hospitals' surgical performance. This study suggests that commonly accepted reliability thresholds may be too high, especially in the context of selective referral.
    Medical care 04/2014; 52(6). DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000138 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Creating a surgical specialty referral center requires a strong interest, expertise, and a market demand in that particular field, as well as some form of promotion. In 2004, we established a tertiary hernia referral center. Our goal in this study was to examine its impact on institutional volume and economics. Materials and methods. The database of all hernia repairs (2004-2011) was reviewed comparing hernia repair type and volume and center financial performance. The ventral hernia repair (VHR) patient subset was further analyzed with particular attention paid to previous repairs, comorbidities, referral patterns, and the concomitant involvement of plastic surgery. Results. From 2004 to 2011, 4927 hernia repairs were performed: 39.3% inguinal, 35.5% ventral or incisional, 16.2% umbilical, 5.8% diaphragmatic, 1.6% femoral, and 1.5% other. Annual billing increased yearly from 7% to 85% and averaged 37% per year. Comparing 2004 with 2011, procedural volume increased 234%, and billing increased 713%. During that period, there was a 2.5-fold increase in open VHRs, and plastic surgeon involvement increased almost 8-fold, (P = .004). In 2005, 51 VHR patients had a previous repair, 27.0% with mesh, versus 114 previous VHR in 2011, 58.3% with mesh (P < .0001). For VHR, in-state referrals from 2004 to 2011 increased 340% while out-of-state referrals jumped 580%. In 2011, 21% of all patients had more than 4 comorbidities, significantly increased from 2004 (P = .02). Conclusion. The establishment of a tertiary, regional referral center for hernia repair has led to a substantial increase in surgical volume, complexity, referral geography, and financial benefit to the institution.
    Surgical Innovation 04/2014; 21(6). DOI:10.1177/1553350614528579 · 1.34 Impact Factor