How Well Is Surgical Improvement Being Conducted? Evaluation of 50 Local Surgery-Related Improvement Efforts

Delivering high-quality care is paramount; however, evaluations show mixed results. Studies assessing improvement efforts in nonsurgical disciplines show suboptimal conduct, yet little is known about how well improvement efforts in surgery are conducted. This study evaluates local surgical improvement efforts to determine whether opportunities exist to improve their conduct.

Fifty consecutive improvement efforts were collected from hospitals participating in 1 of 5 American College of Surgeons Quality Accreditation/Verification Programs. Conduct of these efforts was evaluated using a quality framework (with 39 criteria grouped into 8 components). Descriptive, paired, and 1-way ANOVA analyses were undertaken.

The mean percentage of 39 criteria fulfilled for the 50 improvement efforts was 36% (range 0% to 72%). Individual criterion scores ranged from 0% to 82%. The 2 highest scoring criteria were improvement planning and problem documentation; the 2 lowest scoring were value assessments and stakeholder value perspective. The highest scoring framework component addressed End-of-Project Decision-Making (47%); the lowest was Cost Evaluation (3%). Twenty-four percent of 50 improvement efforts reported full achievement of project goals, 32% reported partial achievement, and 44% reported no achievement. Higher scores were associated with projects having full/partial achievement of stated project goals vs projects not achieving project goals (p < 0.05). Higher scores were not associated with hospital characteristics (eg bed size, teaching status) or improvement characteristics (eg improvement strategy).

Evaluation of local surgical improvement efforts shows opportunities for improvement. Better-conducted improvement efforts were associated with more effective improvement. To support better surgical quality of care, improvement efforts need to improve.