Orthopaedic Trauma Quality Measures for Value-Based Health Care Delivery: A Systematic Review

Objectives To assess the current portfolio of quality measures and candidate quality measures that address orthopaedic trauma surgery. Data sources We systematically reviewed the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Quality Payment Program for quality measures relevant to fracture surgery. We also searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase/Scopus, and Cochrane libraries. Data extraction Clinical practice guidelines were included as candidate quality measures if their development was in accordance with the Institute of Medicine criteria for development of clinical practice guidelines, were based on consistent clinical evidence including at least one Level I study, and carried the strongest possible recommendation by the developing body. We categorized the measures as structure, process, or outcome domains according to the framework described by Donabedian. Data synthesis From the 3809 articles initially identified and screened, a total of 189 combined quality or candidate quality measures were extracted from our review. With regard to the Donabedian framework, there were a total of 7% (13/189) structure, 52% process (99/189), and 41% (77/189) outcome measures identified. Conclusions As quality measures progressively inform reimbursement in value-based health care models, quality measures evaluating the care of patients sustaining a fracture will become increasingly relevant to orthopaedic trauma surgeons.