of its clinical databases into one common platform
and, in so doing, will begin complementing the rich
clinical outcomes data in ACS NSQIP with PROs.
The College has the opportunity to make available the collection of meaningful PROs that will
help promote continuous quality improvement,
influence clinical care, foster patient engagement,
promote performance excellence, and advance
patient-centered innovation in surgery. This initiative is being guided by three key principles: ( 1)
minimize patient/respondent burden, ( 2) maintain
data accuracy, and ( 3) enable actionable improvements. Complementing the ACS NSQIP with PROs
is not without its challenges and limitations. Keeping in mind our guiding principles, we plan to
implement this initiative through iterative phases
to ensure success and sustainability.
Historically, surgical decision making has been
a relatively straightforward process. If a woman
had breast cancer, she needed a mastectomy, and
her surgeon would perform the operation. Consideration of the procedure’s effect on her body
image was generally omitted from the treatment equation. Surgery is no longer only about
prolonging life, but also about minimizing the
negative impact of treatment, optimizing quality of life, and aligning treatment decisions with
our patients’ goals. Minimally invasive surgery
exists today because it can optimize PROs. Only
by measuring clinical outcomes and PROs can
we ensure the provision of optimal, high-quality,
patient-centered surgical care. ♦
1. Warshaw AL. Presidential Address: Achieving our personal
best: Back to the future of the American College of Surgeons.
Bull Am Coll Surg. 2014;99( 12): 9-18. Available at: bulletin.facs.
Accessed January 30, 2017.
2. Lavallee DC, Chenok KE, Love RM, et al. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and
enhance care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016; 35( 4):575-582.
3. Van Der Wees PJ, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden M W, Ayanian JZ,
et al. Integrating the use of patient-reported outcomes for both
clinical practice and performance measurement: Views of
experts from 3 countries. Milbank Q. 2014;92( 4):754-775.
4. Basch E, Spertus J, Dudley RA, et al. Methods for developing
patient-reported outcome-based performance measures (
PRO-PMs). Value Health. 2015; 18( 4):493-504.
5. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Alderman A, et al. The BODY-Q. Plast
Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016; 4( 4):e679.
6. Aaronson N, Elliott T, Greenhalgh J, et al. User’s guide
to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment
in clinical practice 2015. Available at: www.isoqol.org/
UserFiles/2015UsersGuide-Version2.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2017.
7. Deutsch A, Smith L, Gage B, Kelleher C, Garfinkel D. PRO-based performance measures for healthcare accountable entities
2012. Available at: www.qualityforum.org/Work Area/ linkit.asp
x?Link Identifier=id&ItemID=72157. Accessed January 9, 2017.
8. Wu AW, Kharrazi H, Boulware LE, et al. Measure once, cut
twice—adding patient-reported outcome measures to the
electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66( 8 Suppl):S12-20.
9. Lippa J, Fügener A, Arora J, et al. Electronic PROMs: What’s
the right solution for your organization? 2014. Available at:
Accessed January 9, 2017.
10. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) Infrastructure Workshop
Integrating PROs into EHRs Atlanta, GA. November 19-20,
2013. Available at: www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-
January 9, 2017.
11. Baumhauer JF, Bozic KJ. Value-based healthcare: Patient-reported outcomes in clinical decision making. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 2016;474( 6):1375-1378.