Over the past 2 decades, continuous quality improvement has become a focus for government agencies, with little guidance offered on how to do it. Programs that provide surgeons with data about their individual performance and how they compare with others in their region are able to truly drive change.1 Unfortunately, universal participation in national programs has not been achieved because of participation barriers. The greatest of these is cost. Solo practitioners and small groups cannot provide the capital investment to join these programs. In areas where clinicians work at multiple hospitals, additional challenges involve how the group reports quality improvement information for each hospital they cover and how to collect that information at the group level rather than the hospital level.2 The study by Hicks et al3 in this issue of JAMA Surgery is able to provide valuable information that crosses these barriers, but the article also raises numerous questions and has limitations.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Humphries MD. Refining How We Identify High-Value Surgical Care. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(9):852. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1737
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: