How Much is Enough? Public Perception of Minimum Surgeon Volumes.

BACKGROUND

A large body of literature supports an association between surgical volumes and outcomes. Research on this subject has resulted in attempts to quantify minimum volume standards for specific surgeries. However, the extent to which the public takes interest in or is able to interpret surgical volume information is not known.

METHODS

We designed a 38-question online survey to assess respondents' knowledge and beliefs about minimum surgical volume standards, and other factors influencing choice of surgeon. Participants, recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online crowdsourcing marketplace, were specifically asked to estimate minimum volume standards for four different operations (hernia repair, knee replacement, mitral valve repair, and Whipple) and to assess the implications of specific surgeon volumes for decision-making in two hypothetical scenarios.

RESULTS

Among 2024 participants, 81% attested that surgeons should be subject to minimum volume standards. A small minority (19%) reported having prior knowledge of a link between surgeon volumes and outcomes. Respondents' mean estimates for appropriate minimum annual volumes across four operations were directly correlated with surgical complexity (5 for inguinal hernia repair, 25 for Whipple), while published minimum standards fall with increasing surgical complexity (25 for hernia repair, 5 for Whipple). These findings were validated by participants' stated intentions: 55% would proceed with a hernia repair by a surgeon with annual volume of 25, while 13% would proceed with a Whipple when annual volume was 5.

CONCLUSION

The concept of minimum surgical volumes is intuitively important to the lay public. However, the general public's skewed expectations of minimum volume standards demonstrate an inability to interpret surgical volume numbers meaningfully in clinical settings without appropriate context.