Original Research

Total Joint Arthroplasty Quality Ratings: How Are They Similar and How Are They Different?

Author and Disclosure Information

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • TJA quality designation methodologies differ substantially across rating organizations.
  • Only 29% of TJA quality rating methodologies evaluated include a cost element.
  • Only 57% of TJA quality rating methodologies evaluated include patient experience.
  • Only 57% of TJA quality rating methodologies evaluated include process measurements, including antibiotic prophylaxis and standardized care pathways.
  • There is a need for consistent definitions of quality as healthcare stakeholders continue to shift focus from volume to value.


 

References

ABSTRACT

A patient’s perception of hospital or provider quality can have far-reaching effects, as it can impact reimbursement, patient selection of a surgeon, and healthcare competition. A variety of organizations offer quality designations for orthopedic surgery and its subspecialties. Our goal is to compare total joint arthroplasty (TJA) quality designation methodology across key quality rating organizations. One researcher conducted an initial Google search to determine organizations providing quality designations for hospitals and surgeons providing orthopedic procedures with a focus on TJA. Organizations that offer quality designation specific to TJA were determined. Organizations that provided general orthopedic surgery or only surgeon-specific quality designation were excluded from the analysis. The senior author confirmed the inclusion of the final organizations. Seven organizations fit our inclusion criteria. Only the private payers and The Joint Commission required hospital accreditation to meet quality designation criteria. Total arthroplasty volume was considered in 86% of the organizations’ methodologies, and 57% of organizations utilized process measurements such as antibiotic prophylaxis and care pathways. In addition, 57% of organizations included patient experience in their methodologies. Only 29% of organizations included a cost element in their methodology. All organizations utilized outcome data and publicly reported all hospitals receiving their quality designation. Hospital quality designation methodologies are inconsistent in the context of TJA. All stakeholders (ie, providers, payers, and patients) should be involved in deciding the definition of quality.

Continue to: Healthcare in the United States...

Pages

Recommended Reading

Implant Survivorship and Complication Rates After Total Knee Arthroplasty With a Third-Generation Cemented System: 15-Year Follow-Up
MDedge Surgery
Blood Loss Reduction with Tranexamic Acid and a Bipolar Sealer in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery
Radiographic Study of Humeral Stem in Shoulder Arthroplasty After Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy or Subscapularis Tenotomy
MDedge Surgery
When Would a Metal-Backed Component Become Cost-Effective Over an All-Polyethylene Tibia in Total Knee Arthroplasty?
MDedge Surgery
Continuous Cryotherapy vs Ice Following Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Randomized Control Trial
MDedge Surgery
Rheumatoid Arthritis vs Osteoarthritis: Comparison of Demographics and Trends of Joint Replacement Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample
MDedge Surgery
Reasons for Readmission Following Primary Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery
The Prevention and Treatment of Femoral Trial Head Loss in Total Hip Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery
Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Population-Based Study Examining Utilization, Adverse Events, Length of Stay, and Cost
MDedge Surgery
Minimum 5-Year Follow-up of Articular Surface Replacement Acetabular Components Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery