Refining quality measures for electrodiagnostic testing in suspected carpal tunnel syndrome to account for acceptable variations in practice: Expert review process

Kanaka D. Shetty MD, MS, Aashna R. Basu MD, Teryl K. Nuckols MD, MSHS, the Multi-Society Working Group for Electrodiagnosis Quality Measures in CTS

Introduction/aims: Using a set of process-of-care quality measures for electrodiagnostic testing in suspected carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), the research team previously documented large variations in electrodiagnostic testing practices and adherence to quality measures. This study sought to enhance the applicability and validity of the quality measures by integrating acceptable variations in testing practices.

Methods: We recruited 13 expert electrodiagnostic medicine specialists from five specialty societies. The experts iteratively refined five quality measures, and then rated the validity of the refined quality measures (1-9 scale). During this process, the experts reviewed data on adherence to existing quality measures and variations in electrodiagnostic testing practices, and considered recently published quality measures from the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.

Results: Three quality measures (electrodiagnostic testing before surgery for CTS, temperature assessment during electrodiagnostic testing, and electrodiagnostic criteria for severe median neuropathy) underwent few refinements and were rated valid (medians 8-9). Two measures (essential components of electrodiagnosis, criteria for interpreting electrodiagnostic tests as median neuropathy) were judged valid (medians 8) after revisions. For these measures, experts' ratings on the recommended components of sensory or mixed nerve conduction studies varied: agreement among the experts about the use of sensory peak latency was greater than for onset latency or sensory velocity.

Discussion: This study produced quality measures that provide minimum standards for electrodiagnostic testing for suspected CTS that are more comprehensive and nuanced than prior versions. Future work can assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity of these refined measures in diverse physician practices.

---