Surgeon-Specific Performance Reports in General Surgery: An Observational Study of Initial Implementation and Adoption

Yi, Stephanie G.; Wray, Nelda P.; Jones, Stephen L.; Bass, Barbara L.; Nishioka, Jeanne; Brann, Sarah; Ashton, Carol M.

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.04.040

Cited by 29 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Qualitative research has demonstrated concerns that surgeon-specific reporting of outcomes may fail to acknowledge limitations due to insufficient sample size. 5 Moreover, literature regarding physician-specific reporting has stressed the need for adjustment of quality measures in all aspects of medicine in order to produce more statistically valid data. 17,18 This is the first study to our knowledge that explores the reliability of surgeon-specific outcomes rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of Surgeon-Specific Reporting of Complications After Colectomy

Cole

Al-Attar

Charkabarti

et al. 2014

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of Surgeon-Specific Reporting of Complications After Colectomy

Cole

Al-Attar

Charkabarti

et al. 2014

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Publishing surgeon data is not unique to the UK. Individual‐level outcome is contentious in both the UK and the USA, with concerns raised about the reliability of outcomes for low‐volume procedures, the appropriateness of outcome measures, the potential for cherry‐picking of easy procedures by surgeons, and the lack of acknowledgement of the teamwork involved in surgical care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of publishing surgeon-specific outcomes on surgical training

Harries

Glasbey

Gokani

et al. 2019

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Over the past 10 years, the National Health Service in England has started to publish surgeon‐specific outcomes publicly. The aim of this study was to investigate how this has affected training case exposure for surgeons in training. Methods Anonymized data were collected from the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme database for operations in each specialty with published surgeon outcomes, involving surgical trainees on an approved training programme between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016. Trainee and supervisor involvement in operations before and after the start of publication of surgeon‐specific outcomes were compared using mixed‐effects models. Results A total of 163 076 recorded operative procedures were included. A statistically significant improvement in exposure to training procedures was observed for anterior resection of rectum, carotid endarterectomy, gastrectomy, meningioma excision, prostatectomy and thyroidectomy following the introduction of publication of surgeon outcomes. In coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and total hip replacement (THR), however, there was a reduction in involvement in training procedures. This was apparent for both trainee and supervisor involvement in CABG, and for trainee involvement in THR. Conclusion Exposure to training procedures has improved rather than declined in the UK in the majority of surgical specialties, since the publication of surgeon‐specific outcomes.

show abstract

“…3 These profiling methods should be approached with caution, as inaccurate assessment of surgeon quality could have implications for willingness to perform higher risk operations on severely ill patients, loss of referrals, risk of liability, and issues with public perception. 4,5 The ability to confidently compare surgeon-specific outcomes relies on the measures being highly reliable, i.e. high quality surgeons can confidently be distinguished from poor quality surgeons, with minimal chance of misclassification.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%