A Strategy for Risk-adjusted Ranking of Surgeons and Practices Based on Patient-reported Outcomes After Elective Lumbar Surgery

Ahilan Sivaganesan, Anthony L. Asher, Mohamad Bydon, Inamullah Khan, Panagoitis Kerezoudis, Kevin Foley, Hui Nian, Frank E. Harrell, Kristin R. Archer, Clinton J. Devin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to present a scheme for patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based, risk-adjusted rankings of spine surgeons and sites that perform elective lumbar surgery, using the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is currently no means of determining which spine surgeons or centers are positive or negative outliers with respect to PROs for elective lumbar surgery. This is a critical gap as we move toward a value-based model of health care in which providers assume more accountability for the effectiveness of their treatments. METHODS: Random effects regression models were fit for the following outcomes, with QOD site as a fixed effect but surgeon ID as a random effect: Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, back pain and leg pain, and satisfaction. Hierarchical Bayesian models were also fit for each outcome, with QOD site as a random effect and surgeon as a nested random effect. RESULTS: Our study cohort consists of 8834 patients who underwent surgery by 124 QOD surgeons, for the degenerative lumbar diseases. Nonoverlapping Bayesian credible intervals demonstrate that the variance attributed to QOD site was greater than the nested variance attributed to surgeon ID for the included PROs. CONCLUSION: This study presents a novel strategy for the risk-adjusted, PRO-based ranking of spine surgeons and practices. This can help identify positive and negative outliers, thereby forming the basis for large-scale quality improvement. Assuming adequate coverage of baseline risk adjustment, the choice of surgeon matters when considering PROs after lumbar surgery; however, the choice of site appears to matter more.3.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)670-677
Number of pages8
JournalSpine
Volume44
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Databases
Spine
Risk Adjustment
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Surgeons
Social Responsibility
Back Pain
Quality Improvement
Leg
Cohort Studies
Delivery of Health Care
Pain

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

A Strategy for Risk-adjusted Ranking of Surgeons and Practices Based on Patient-reported Outcomes After Elective Lumbar Surgery. / Sivaganesan, Ahilan; Asher, Anthony L.; Bydon, Mohamad; Khan, Inamullah; Kerezoudis, Panagoitis; Foley, Kevin; Nian, Hui; Harrell, Frank E.; Archer, Kristin R.; Devin, Clinton J.

In: Spine, Vol. 44, No. 9, 01.05.2019, p. 670-677.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sivaganesan, A, Asher, AL, Bydon, M, Khan, I, Kerezoudis, P, Foley, K, Nian, H, Harrell, FE, Archer, KR & Devin, CJ 2019, 'A Strategy for Risk-adjusted Ranking of Surgeons and Practices Based on Patient-reported Outcomes After Elective Lumbar Surgery', Spine, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 670-677. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002894
Sivaganesan, Ahilan ; Asher, Anthony L. ; Bydon, Mohamad ; Khan, Inamullah ; Kerezoudis, Panagoitis ; Foley, Kevin ; Nian, Hui ; Harrell, Frank E. ; Archer, Kristin R. ; Devin, Clinton J. / A Strategy for Risk-adjusted Ranking of Surgeons and Practices Based on Patient-reported Outcomes After Elective Lumbar Surgery. In: Spine. 2019 ; Vol. 44, No. 9. pp. 670-677.
@article{5d1efb39c4b64f03b7ad7ddbfb2755dd,
title = "A Strategy for Risk-adjusted Ranking of Surgeons and Practices Based on Patient-reported Outcomes After Elective Lumbar Surgery",
abstract = "STUDY DESIGN: This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to present a scheme for patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based, risk-adjusted rankings of spine surgeons and sites that perform elective lumbar surgery, using the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is currently no means of determining which spine surgeons or centers are positive or negative outliers with respect to PROs for elective lumbar surgery. This is a critical gap as we move toward a value-based model of health care in which providers assume more accountability for the effectiveness of their treatments. METHODS: Random effects regression models were fit for the following outcomes, with QOD site as a fixed effect but surgeon ID as a random effect: Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, back pain and leg pain, and satisfaction. Hierarchical Bayesian models were also fit for each outcome, with QOD site as a random effect and surgeon as a nested random effect. RESULTS: Our study cohort consists of 8834 patients who underwent surgery by 124 QOD surgeons, for the degenerative lumbar diseases. Nonoverlapping Bayesian credible intervals demonstrate that the variance attributed to QOD site was greater than the nested variance attributed to surgeon ID for the included PROs. CONCLUSION: This study presents a novel strategy for the risk-adjusted, PRO-based ranking of spine surgeons and practices. This can help identify positive and negative outliers, thereby forming the basis for large-scale quality improvement. Assuming adequate coverage of baseline risk adjustment, the choice of surgeon matters when considering PROs after lumbar surgery; however, the choice of site appears to matter more.3.",
author = "Ahilan Sivaganesan and Asher, {Anthony L.} and Mohamad Bydon and Inamullah Khan and Panagoitis Kerezoudis and Kevin Foley and Hui Nian and Harrell, {Frank E.} and Archer, {Kristin R.} and Devin, {Clinton J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/BRS.0000000000002894",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "670--677",
journal = "Spine",
issn = "0362-2436",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Strategy for Risk-adjusted Ranking of Surgeons and Practices Based on Patient-reported Outcomes After Elective Lumbar Surgery

AU - Sivaganesan, Ahilan

AU - Asher, Anthony L.

AU - Bydon, Mohamad

AU - Khan, Inamullah

AU - Kerezoudis, Panagoitis

AU - Foley, Kevin

AU - Nian, Hui

AU - Harrell, Frank E.

AU - Archer, Kristin R.

AU - Devin, Clinton J.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - STUDY DESIGN: This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to present a scheme for patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based, risk-adjusted rankings of spine surgeons and sites that perform elective lumbar surgery, using the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is currently no means of determining which spine surgeons or centers are positive or negative outliers with respect to PROs for elective lumbar surgery. This is a critical gap as we move toward a value-based model of health care in which providers assume more accountability for the effectiveness of their treatments. METHODS: Random effects regression models were fit for the following outcomes, with QOD site as a fixed effect but surgeon ID as a random effect: Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, back pain and leg pain, and satisfaction. Hierarchical Bayesian models were also fit for each outcome, with QOD site as a random effect and surgeon as a nested random effect. RESULTS: Our study cohort consists of 8834 patients who underwent surgery by 124 QOD surgeons, for the degenerative lumbar diseases. Nonoverlapping Bayesian credible intervals demonstrate that the variance attributed to QOD site was greater than the nested variance attributed to surgeon ID for the included PROs. CONCLUSION: This study presents a novel strategy for the risk-adjusted, PRO-based ranking of spine surgeons and practices. This can help identify positive and negative outliers, thereby forming the basis for large-scale quality improvement. Assuming adequate coverage of baseline risk adjustment, the choice of surgeon matters when considering PROs after lumbar surgery; however, the choice of site appears to matter more.3.

AB - STUDY DESIGN: This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to present a scheme for patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based, risk-adjusted rankings of spine surgeons and sites that perform elective lumbar surgery, using the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is currently no means of determining which spine surgeons or centers are positive or negative outliers with respect to PROs for elective lumbar surgery. This is a critical gap as we move toward a value-based model of health care in which providers assume more accountability for the effectiveness of their treatments. METHODS: Random effects regression models were fit for the following outcomes, with QOD site as a fixed effect but surgeon ID as a random effect: Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D, back pain and leg pain, and satisfaction. Hierarchical Bayesian models were also fit for each outcome, with QOD site as a random effect and surgeon as a nested random effect. RESULTS: Our study cohort consists of 8834 patients who underwent surgery by 124 QOD surgeons, for the degenerative lumbar diseases. Nonoverlapping Bayesian credible intervals demonstrate that the variance attributed to QOD site was greater than the nested variance attributed to surgeon ID for the included PROs. CONCLUSION: This study presents a novel strategy for the risk-adjusted, PRO-based ranking of spine surgeons and practices. This can help identify positive and negative outliers, thereby forming the basis for large-scale quality improvement. Assuming adequate coverage of baseline risk adjustment, the choice of surgeon matters when considering PROs after lumbar surgery; however, the choice of site appears to matter more.3.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064853150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064853150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002894

DO - 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002894

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 670

EP - 677

JO - Spine

JF - Spine

SN - 0362-2436

IS - 9

ER -