Publication of surgeon specific outcome data: A review of implementation, controversies and the potential impact on surgical training

Abstract

Government-mandated publication of named surgeon-specific outcome data (SSD) has recently been introduced across nine surgical speciality areas in England. This move is the first time that such national data has been released in any country, and it promises to provide a significant advancement in health service transparency. Data is derived from nine preexisting national surgical audit databases. However, eight of these were not originally designed for this purpose, and there is considerable controversy surrounding data quality, risk adjustment, patient use and interpretation, and surgeons' subsequent case selection. Concerns also surround the degree to which these results truly reflect the individual consultant, or the wider hospital team and accompanying resources. The potential impact on surgical training has largely been overlooked. This paper investigated the background to SSD publication and controversies surrounding this, the potential impact on surgical training and the response to these concerns from medical and surgical leaders. As SSD collection continues to be refined, the most appropriate outcomes measurements need to be established, and risk adjustment requires ongoing improvement and validation. Prospective evaluation of changes in surgical training should be undertaken, as any degradation of will have both short and long-term consequences for patients and surgeons alike. It is important that the literature supporting the safety of supervised trainee practice is also promoted in order to counterbalance any potential concerns that might detract from trainee operating opportunities. Finally, it is important that outcomes data is communicated to patients in the most meaningful way in order to facilitate their understanding and interpretation given the complexities of the data and analysis involved.

Individual surgeon mortality rates: can outliers be detected? A national utility analysis

“…It was described as a major breakthrough in transparency that could help drive up standards 2. Concerns were raised including whether surgeons performed particular procedures frequently enough to enable those with an excess mortality to be reliably identified.…”

Delirium Prediction using Machine Learning Models on Predictive Electronic Health Records Data

“…ZIP codes can act as a surrogate of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics, which has been shown to be associated with multiple disease and health behaviors (36–38). The performance of attending doctors can potentially be a factor of postoperative outcomes as well (39, 40). …”

Weekend effect in non-elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

“…Data are collected on five broad procedure types: repair of AAA, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), lower limb angioplasty, lower limb bypass and lower limb amputation. Although data input was voluntary in previous years, it has been mandatory for elective AAA and CEA in England since the (much criticized16, 17, 18) introduction of compulsory surgeon‐level outcome reporting for elective AAA repair and CEA in 2013. Case ascertainment rates have been shown to be in excess of 85 per cent for elective AAA repair19.…”