Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part III: Standardization, Protocols, and Achieving Better Outcomes for Patient Care.

Cardell CF, Peters XD, Hu QL, Robinson-Gerace A, Mistretta S, Wescott AB, Maggard-Gibbons M, Hoyt DB, Ko CY. Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part III: Standardization, Protocols, and Achieving Better Outcomes for Patient Care. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2024 Jul 9.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: After decades of experience supporting surgical quality and safety by the American College of Surgeons, the ACS Quality Verification Program (ACS QVP) was developed to help hospitals improve surgical quality and safety. This review is the final installment of a three-part review aimed to synthesize evidence supporting the main principles of the ACS QVP. STUDY DESIGN: Evidence was systematically reviewed for three principles: standardized team-based care across five phases of surgical care, disease-based management, and external regulatory review. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 and two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 5,237 studies across these three topics were identified. Studies were included if they evaluated the relationship between the standard of interest and patient-level or organization measures within the last twenty years. RESULTS: After applying inclusion criteria, a total of 150 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. Despite institutional variation in standardized clinical pathways, evidence demonstrated improved outcomes such as reduced length of stay (LOS), costs, and complications. Evidence for multidisciplinary disease-based care protocols was mixed, though trended towards improving patient outcomes such as reduced LOS and readmissions. Similarly, the evidence for accreditation and adherence to external process measures was also mixed, though several studies demonstrated the benefit of accreditation programs on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The identified literature supports the importance of standardized multidisciplinary and disease-based processes and external regulatory systems to improve quality of care.