Quality Assessment in Surgery Riding a Lame Horse

Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Raemistr. 100, Zurich, Switzerland.
Annals of surgery (Impact Factor: 7.19). 03/2010; 251(4):766-71. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d0d211
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Quality assessment in surgery is paramount for patients and health care providers. In our center, quality assessment is based on the recording of preoperative risk factors of each patient and a well-established grading system to track complications. Our prospective quality database is administrated by residents. However, the validity of such data collection is unknown.
To evaluate the validity of the recorded data, a specially trained study nurse audited our prospective quality database over a 6-month period. In the first 3 months, the audit was done in an undisclosed manner. Then, the audit was disclosed to the residents who were again subjected to a teaching course. Thereafter, the audit was continued in a disclosed manner for another 3 months, and data were compared between the 2 periods. Furthermore, we inquired about the strategies to assess surgical quality in 108 European medical centers.
Surprisingly, residents failed to report most complications; 80% (164/206) and 79% (275/347; P = 0.27) of the negative postoperative events were not recorded during the first and the second period, respectively. When captured, however, grading of complications was correct in 97% of the cases. Moreover, comorbidities were incorrectly assessed in 20% of the patients in the first period and in 14% thereafter (P = 0.07). The survey disclosed that residents and junior staff are responsible of recording surgical outcome in 80% of the participating European centers.
Recording of outcome by surgical residents is unreliable,despite active and focused training. Hence, surgery should be evaluated by dedicated personnel.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rate of adverse events after pancreatectomy is widely reported as a measure of surgical quality. However, morbidity data are routinely acquired retrospectively and often are reported at 30 days. The authors hypothesized that morbidity after pancreatectomy is therefore underreported. They sought to compare rates of adverse events calculated at multiple time points after pancreatectomy. The authors instituted an active surveillance system to detect, categorize, and grade the severity of all adverse events after pancreatectomy, using the modified Accordion system and International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definitions. All patients and clinical events were monitored directly for at least 90 days after surgery. Of 315 consecutively monitored patients, 239 (76 %) experienced 500 unique adverse events. The absolute number of unique adverse events increased by 32 % between index discharge and 90 days and by 10 % between 30 and 90 days. The number of severe adverse events increased by 96 % between discharge and 90 days and by 29 % between 30 and 90 days. In this study, 16 % of the patients experienced at least one severe adverse event within the index hospitalization, 24 % within 30 postoperative days, and 29 % within 90 days. Among the 80 readmissions that occurred within 90 days, 28 (35 %) occurred later than 30 days after pancreatectomy. Approximately one-third of severe adverse events and readmissions are reported more than 30 days after surgery. All adverse events that occur within 90 days of surgery must be identified and reported for accurate characterization of the morbidity associated with pancreatectomy.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 02/2015; DOI:10.1245/s10434-015-4437-z · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CONTEXT: The incidence of postoperative complications is still the most frequently used surrogate marker of quality in surgery, but no standard guidelines or criteria exist for reporting surgical complications in the area of urology. OBJECTIVE: To review the available reporting systems used for urologic surgical complications, to establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications using standardised systems, to assess systematically the Clavien-Dindo system when used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical procedures, to identify shortcomings in reporting complications, and to propose recommendations for the development and implementation of future reporting systems that are focused on patient-centred outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Standardised systems for reporting and classification of surgical complications were identified through a systematic review of the literature. To establish a possible change in attitude towards reporting of complications related to urologic procedures, we performed a systematic literature search of all papers reporting complications after urologic surgery published in European Urology, Journal of Urology, Urology, BJU International, and World Journal of Urology in 1999-2000 and 2009-2010. Data identification for the systematic assessment of the Clavien-Dindo system currently used for the reporting of complications related to urologic surgical interventions involved a Medline/Embase search and the search engines of individual urologic journals and publishers using Clavien, urology, and complications as keywords. All selected papers were full-text retrieved and assessed; analysis was done based on structured forms. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The systematic review of the literature for standardised systems used for reporting and classification of surgical complications revealed five such systems. As far as the attitude of urologists towards reporting of complications, a shift could be seen in the number of studies using most of the Martin criteria, as well as in the number of studies using either standardised criteria or the Clavien-Dindo system. The latter system was not properly used in 72 papers (35.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Uniformed reporting of complications after urologic procedures will aid all those involved in patient care and scientific publishing (authors, reviewers, and editors). It will also contribute to the improvement of the scientific quality of papers published in the field of urologic surgery. When reporting the outcomes of urologic procedures, the committee proposes a series of quality criteria.
    Actas urologicas españolas 07/2012; 37(1). DOI:10.1016/j.acuroe.2012.02.007 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias is one of the most commonly performed operations, many aspects of their treatment are still under debate or poorly studied. In addition, there is a lack of good definitions and classifications that make the evaluation of studies and meta-analyses in this field of surgery difficult. Under the auspices of the board of the European Hernia Society and following the previously published classifications on inguinal and on ventral hernias, a working group was formed to create an online platform for registration and outcome measurement of operations for ventral abdominal wall hernias. Development of such a registry involved reaching agreement about clear definitions and classifications on patient variables, surgical procedures and mesh materials used, as well as outcome parameters. The EuraHS working group (European registry for abdominal wall hernias) comprised of a multinational European expert panel with specific interest in abdominal wall hernias. Over five working group meetings, consensus was reached on definitions for the data to be recorded in the registry. A set of well-described definitions was made. The previously reported EHS classifications of hernias will be used. Risk factors for recurrences and co-morbidities of patients were listed. A new severity of comorbidity score was defined. Post-operative complications were classified according to existing classifications as described for other fields of surgery. A new 3-dimensional numerical quality-of-life score, EuraHS-QoL score, was defined. An online platform is created based on the definitions and classifications, which can be used by individual surgeons, surgical teams or for multicentre studies. A EuraHS website is constructed with easy access to all the definitions, classifications and results from the database. An online platform for registration and outcome measurement of abdominal wall hernia repairs with clear definitions and classifications is offered to the surgical community. It is hoped that this registry could lead to better evidence-based guidelines for treatment of abdominal wall hernias based on hernia variables, patient variables, available hernia repair materials and techniques.
    Hernia 04/2012; 16(3):239-50. DOI:10.1007/s10029-012-0912-7 · 2.09 Impact Factor