Price Institute of Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Apr;214(4):436-43; discussion 443-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.018. Epub 2012 Mar 6.
Process measures constitute the focal point of surgical quality studies. High levels of compliance with such processes have not correlated with improved outcomes. Wide ranges of reported hospital death rates led us to hypothesize that survival after elective colon resection would be a legitimate outcomes measure for quality of surgical practice.
We studied risk-adjusted hospital mortality rates of 85,260 patients in teaching hospitals as reported to the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2011. Data were analyzed by institution and surgeon (deidentified). There were 34,504 patients from the HealthCare Utilization Project (HCUP, 2007-2008), who provided a comparison group for nonteaching hospitals. Surgeons with less than 1 year of reported data were excluded.
Elective colon resection mortality rates were densely concentrated around 1.56% for teaching hospitals and at 1.08% for defined surgeons. HCUP data demonstrated a 1.38% nonteaching hospital mortality rate. Neither hospital nor surgeon volume were determinants of mortality, and lower volume entities displayed the widest mortality variations. Among 193 teaching hospitals, there were 6 outliers (4.1%), defined as >2 standard deviations (SDs) above the mean. Similarly, 32 of 681 individual surgeons (4.7%) had a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate >2SDs above the mean.
Elective colon resection is a safe procedure in both teaching hospitals and nonteaching hospitals, with an impressively homogenous mean mortality rate of 1.56% in teaching hospitals, and 1.38% in nonteaching hospitals. We reject our original hypothesis because the data do not sufficiently discriminate to permit the use of death after elective colon resection as a differentiating quality measure; however, the data do identify individual poor performers. Poor performing institutions/surgeons should seek extramural guidance to improve their outcomes or discontinue performing such operations.
过程指标是外科质量研究的重点。然而,高遵医水平并不一定能带来改善的结果。报告的医院死亡率范围很广,这促使我们假设择期结肠切除术的存活率将是衡量外科实践质量的合理结果指标。
我们研究了 2005 年 1 月 1 日至 2011 年 3 月 31 日期间,向联合大学卫生系统(UHC)报告的 85260 名教学医院患者的风险调整后医院死亡率。数据由机构和外科医生(匿名)进行分析。还有来自医疗保健利用项目(HCUP,2007-2008 年)的 34504 名患者,为非教学医院提供了一个对照组。报告数据不足 1 年的外科医生被排除在外。
教学医院的择期结肠切除术死亡率密集集中在 1.56%左右,而明确外科医生的死亡率为 1.08%。HCUP 数据显示非教学医院的死亡率为 1.38%。医院和外科医生的手术量都不是死亡率的决定因素,而低手术量的实体显示出最大的死亡率变化。在 193 家教学医院中,有 6 家(4.1%)为异常值,定义为超过平均值 2 个标准差(SD)。同样,681 名外科医生中有 32 名(4.7%)的风险调整后医院死亡率超过平均值 2 个 SD。
择期结肠切除术在教学医院和非教学医院都是安全的手术,教学医院的平均死亡率为 1.56%,非教学医院的平均死亡率为 1.38%,令人印象深刻地一致。我们拒绝了最初的假设,因为数据没有足够的区分度,不能使用择期结肠切除术后的死亡作为区分质量的指标;然而,数据确实确定了个体表现不佳的情况。表现不佳的机构/外科医生应寻求外部指导,以改善其结果或停止进行此类手术。