Quality Indicators in Bariatric Surgery

Improving Quality of Care

Published in: Surgery for obesity and related diseases, v. 2, no. 4, July/Aug. 2006, p. [423]-429

Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 2005

by Melinda Maggard Gibbons, Marcia L. McGory, Paul G. Shekelle, Clifford Y. Ko

Read More

Access further information on this document at Surgery for obesity and related diseases

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVES: Bariatric surgery is one of the most common complex intraabdominal operations, and there are reports of variations in outcome among providers. There is a need to standardize the processes of care in this specialty, and, as an attempt to do so, quality indicators were developed. METHODS: Candidate indicators, covering preoperative to follow-up care (5 domains), were developed based on evidence in the literature. Indicators were formally rated as valid by use of the RAND/UCLA Validity and Appropriateness method, which quantitatively assesses the expert judgment of a group using a 9-point scale (1 = not valid; 9 = definitely valid). Fourteen individuals participated in the expert panel, including bariatric surgeons and obesity experts. The method is iterative with 2 rounds of ratings and a group discussion. Indicators with a median rating ?7 were valid. This method has been shown to have content, construct, and predictive validity. RESULTS: Of 63 candidate indicators, 51 were rated as valid measures of good quality of care covering the spectrum of perioperative care for bariatric surgery. Of the 51 indicators rated as valid (?7), all had sufficient agreement scores among panelists. Indicators included structural measures (e.g., procedural volume requirements) as well as processes of care (e.g., receipt of preoperative antibiotics, use of clinical pathway). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first formal attempt at development of quality indicators for bariatric surgery. Adherence to the indicators should equate with better quality of care, and their implementation will allow for quantitative assessment of quality of care.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.