Regional Thoracic Surgery Quality Collaboration Formation: Providence Thoracic Surgery Initiative

Abstract

The TSI is evolving. Surgeon engagement remains high. The TSI enabled surgeons to lead, set the agenda, and remain in control of our destiny. Indeed, health care cannot appropriately evolve without such physician vision, engagement, and leadership.

The influence of tobacco load versus smoking status on outcomes following lobectomy for lung cancer in a statewide quality collaborative

“…Data from the STS-GTSD offer the opportunity to review institutional results, compare and understand variation, and create opportunities for dissemination of quality improvement strategies in thoracic surgical care. [13][14][15] This study, among the few region-specific general thoracic surgery quality collaborative reports, 10,16,17 represents the first MSTCVS-GTSD quality review initiative in the state of Michigan. Our analysis focused on the influence of smoking status on composite postoperative mortality and major morbidity.…”

“…To our knowledge, there is no established minimum number of participants that ensures the success of a collaborative group, but our goal is to identify areas for improvement that might have a salutary effect for the patients served by collaborative participants. Other efforts in general thoracic surgery have been described and capture data provided by 5 and 14 total participant hospitals in Washington state 16 and the Providence Health and Services, 17 respectively. Identifying participants through a professional statewide surgical society is facile as such participants, solely by their society membership, likely have an interest in engaging other professionals within their community.…”

First in line for robotic surgery: Would you want to know?

“…In surgery, high clinical volumes, specialized care, and multidisciplinary teams contribute to superior clinical outcomes. 3,4 As it relates to cardiovascular surgery, Birkmeyer and colleagues 5,6 published the seminal work demonstrating the inverse relationship between volume and perioperative mortality. Differences in outcome between hospitals may in large part be due to surgeon experience with up to 100% of differences in outcomes of aortic valve replacement attributable to surgeon volume and 49% for coronary artery bypass grafting.…”