FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2020676880> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2020676880 endingPage "33" @default.
• W2020676880 startingPage "27" @default.
• W2020676880 abstract "Background In an era of proliferating systems of quality assessment, surgeon confidence in metric tools is essential for successful initiatives in quality improvement. We evaluated surgeons' awareness and attitudes about ACS-NSQIP, which is the only national, surgeon-developed, risk-adjusted, system of surgical outcome assessment. Methods A 33-item survey instrument was constructed and content validity established through content expert review; test-retest reliability was assessed (weighted-kappa = 0.72). Survey administration occurred in three institutions with varying ACS-NSQIP experience. Summary statistics were generated and subgroup analyses performed (Fisher's exact test). Results One-hundred and eight surgeons participated. Practice experience varied (27% residents, 33% < 10, 12% 10–20, and 28% > 20 years). Seventy-two percent had fellowship training. Surgeons were familiar with ACS-NSQIP structure, including prospective datacollection (70%), case-sampling (63%), and reporting as observed/expected ratios (83%). Surgeons knew some collected data-points but misidentified EKG-findings of MI (67%), surgeon case-experience (41%), and anastomotic dehiscence (79%). Most felt ACS-NSQIP would improve quality of care (79%) and identify areas for improvement (92%). Surgeons were less confident regarding utility at an individual level, with only 46% believing surgeon-specific outcomes should be reported. Few thought ACS-NSQIP data should be available publicly (45%), used for marketing (26%), or direct pay-for-performance (24%). Reservations were most pronounced among surgeons with institutional ACS-NSQIP experience. Conclusion While surgeons accept ACS-NSQIP at an institutional level, skepticism remains surrounding measurement of individual outcomes and public reporting. Surgeons at institutions with a longer duration of experience with ACS-NSQIP tended to be more cynical about potential data applications. Ongoing education and assessment of surgeons' perceptions of quality improvement initiatives is necessary to ensure surgeons remain engaged actively in determining how quality of care data is measured and utilized. In an era of proliferating systems of quality assessment, surgeon confidence in metric tools is essential for successful initiatives in quality improvement. We evaluated surgeons' awareness and attitudes about ACS-NSQIP, which is the only national, surgeon-developed, risk-adjusted, system of surgical outcome assessment. A 33-item survey instrument was constructed and content validity established through content expert review; test-retest reliability was assessed (weighted-kappa = 0.72). Survey administration occurred in three institutions with varying ACS-NSQIP experience. Summary statistics were generated and subgroup analyses performed (Fisher's exact test). One-hundred and eight surgeons participated. Practice experience varied (27% residents, 33% < 10, 12% 10–20, and 28% > 20 years). Seventy-two percent had fellowship training. Surgeons were familiar with ACS-NSQIP structure, including prospective datacollection (70%), case-sampling (63%), and reporting as observed/expected ratios (83%). Surgeons knew some collected data-points but misidentified EKG-findings of MI (67%), surgeon case-experience (41%), and anastomotic dehiscence (79%). Most felt ACS-NSQIP would improve quality of care (79%) and identify areas for improvement (92%). Surgeons were less confident regarding utility at an individual level, with only 46% believing surgeon-specific outcomes should be reported. Few thought ACS-NSQIP data should be available publicly (45%), used for marketing (26%), or direct pay-for-performance (24%). Reservations were most pronounced among surgeons with institutional ACS-NSQIP experience. While surgeons accept ACS-NSQIP at an institutional level, skepticism remains surrounding measurement of individual outcomes and public reporting. Surgeons at institutions with a longer duration of experience with ACS-NSQIP tended to be more cynical about potential data applications. Ongoing education and assessment of surgeons' perceptions of quality improvement initiatives is necessary to ensure surgeons remain engaged actively in determining how quality of care data is measured and utilized." @default.
• W2020676880 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2020676880 creator A5013886987 @default.
• W2020676880 creator A5074460533 @default.
• W2020676880 creator A5074959559 @default.
• W2020676880 creator A5083099226 @default.
• W2020676880 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W2020676880 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2020676880 title "Surrounded by quality metrics: What do surgeons think of ACS-NSQIP?" @default.
• W2020676880 cites W1939126639 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W1978134938 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W1990667948 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W1992783481 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W2043057477 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W2046133119 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W2057367182 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W2062092949 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W2069200260 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W2102906857 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W2135187257 @default.
• W2020676880 cites W87919420 @default.
• W2020676880 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2008.08.002" @default.
• W2020676880 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19081472" @default.
• W2020676880 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2020676880 type Work @default.
• W2020676880 sameAs 2020676880 @default.
• W2020676880 citedByCount "46" @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802012 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802013 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802014 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802015 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802016 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802017 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802018 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802019 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802020 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802021 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802022 @default.
• W2020676880 countsByYear W20206768802023 @default.
• W2020676880 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2020676880 hasAuthorship W2020676880A5013886987 @default.
• W2020676880 hasAuthorship W2020676880A5074460533 @default.
• W2020676880 hasAuthorship W2020676880A5074959559 @default.
• W2020676880 hasAuthorship W2020676880A5083099226 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C176217482 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C198783460 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C21547014 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C71405471 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C126322002 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C141071460 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C151730666 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C162324750 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C176217482 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C17744445 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C198783460 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C199539241 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C21547014 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C2777267654 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C2779473830 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C44249647 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C512399662 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C61434518 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C71405471 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C71924100 @default.
• W2020676880 hasConceptScore W2020676880C86803240 @default.
• W2020676880 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2020676880 hasLocation W20206768801 @default.
• W2020676880 hasLocation W20206768802 @default.
• W2020676880 hasOpenAccess W2020676880 @default.
• W2020676880 hasPrimaryLocation W20206768801 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2369162477 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2519357708 @default.
• W2020676880 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2020676880 hasVolume "145" @default.
• W2020676880 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2020676880 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2020676880 magId "2020676880" @default.
• W2020676880 workType "article" @default.