You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 11 No. 6, Nov-Dec 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Commentary
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice, Other
 •Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Quality of Life
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Facial Plastic Surgery
 •Cosmetic Surgery/ Procedures
 •Nasal Surgery
 •Rhinoplasty
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Measuring Outcomes in Nasal Surgery

Realities and Possibilities

John S. Rhee, MD, MPH

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009;11(6):416-419.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Many desire outcome measurements in surgery, but few can agree on the measuring tools, and fewer yet desire to be measured. This conflict underlies the quandary of measuring outcomes in any surgical disease process, perhaps more so in the case of surgical procedures that address the form and function of the nose. Nasal procedures that address functional and/or aesthetic concerns—septoplasty, rhinoplasty, nasal valve surgery, turbinoplasty, and septorhinoplasty—are oftentimes so intermingled in their purposes and proposed clinical outcomes that the success of the intervention can be difficult to quantify. Yet the health care and academic environments often demand clear and distinct measurements for comparisons, reimbursements, research purposes, and certifications.

The health care environment for the nasal surgeon today is filled with lengthy preauthorizations, denial of services, confusing coding schemes, and at times conflicting satisfactory outcomes. At the root of the issue is that gold standard outcome . . . [Full Text of this Article]

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES

Realities

Possibilities


OBJECTIVE OUTCOME MEASURES
Realities

Possibilities


DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES AND CONSENSUS STATEMENTS
Realities

Possibilities


PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Realities

Possibilities


CONCLUSIONS

AUTHOR INFORMATION






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.