Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK
Leeds Institute of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 4;12(11):e067409. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067409.
Postoperative mortality is a widely used quality indicator, but it may be unreliable when procedure numbers and/or mortality rates are low, due to insufficient statistical power. The objective was to investigate the statistical validity of postoperative 30-day mortality as a quality metric for neurosurgical practice across healthcare providers.
Retrospective cohort study.
Hospital Episode Statistics data from all neurosurgical units in England.
Patients who underwent neurosurgical procedures between April 2013 and March 2018. Procedures were grouped using the National Neurosurgical Audit Programme classification.
National 30-day postoperative mortality rates were calculated for elective and non-elective neurosurgical procedural groups. The study estimated the proportion of neurosurgeons and NHS trusts in England that performed sufficient procedures in 3-year and 5-year periods to detect unusual performance (defined as double the national rate of mortality). The actual difference in mortality rates that could be reliably detected based on procedure volumes of neurosurgeons and units over a 5-year period was modelled.
The 30-day mortality rates for all elective and non-elective procedures were 0.4% and 6.1%, respectively. Only one neurosurgeon in England achieved the minimum sample size (n=2402) of elective cases in 5 years needed to detect if their mortality rate was double the national average. All neurosurgical units achieved the minimum sample sizes for both elective (n=2402) and non-elective (n=149) procedures. In several neurosurgical subspecialties, approximately 80% of units (or more) achieved the minimum sample sizes needed to detect if their mortality rate was double the national rate, including elective neuro-oncology (baseline mortality rate=2.3%), non-elective neuro-oncology (rate=5.7%), neurovascular (rate=6.7%) and trauma (rate=11%).
Postoperative mortality lacks statistical power as a measure of individual neurosurgeon performance. Neurosurgical units in England performed sufficient procedure numbers overall and in several subspecialty areas to support the use of mortality as a quality indicator.
术后死亡率是一种广泛使用的质量指标,但当手术数量和/或死亡率较低时,由于统计能力不足,其可能不可靠。本研究旨在调查术后 30 天死亡率作为衡量神经外科医生手术质量的指标在不同医疗服务提供者中的统计有效性。
回顾性队列研究。
英格兰所有神经外科单位的医院病例统计数据。
2013 年 4 月至 2018 年 3 月期间接受神经外科手术的患者。手术采用国家神经外科审计计划分类进行分组。
计算择期和非择期神经外科手术组的全国术后 30 天死亡率。该研究估计了在 3 年和 5 年内进行足够数量手术以发现异常表现(定义为死亡率是全国水平的两倍)的英格兰神经外科医生和 NHS 信托的比例。根据神经外科医生和单位在 5 年内的手术量,对可可靠检测到的实际死亡率差异进行了建模。
所有择期和非择期手术的 30 天死亡率分别为 0.4%和 6.1%。在英格兰,只有一位神经外科医生在 5 年内完成了 2402 例择期手术的最小样本量,以检测其死亡率是否是全国平均水平的两倍。所有神经外科单位都达到了择期(n=2402)和非择期(n=149)手术的最小样本量。在几个神经外科亚专业中,约 80%的单位(或更多)达到了检测死亡率是否是全国水平两倍所需的最小样本量,包括择期神经肿瘤学(基线死亡率=2.3%)、非择期神经肿瘤学(死亡率=5.7%)、神经血管(死亡率=6.7%)和创伤(死亡率=11%)。
术后死亡率作为衡量单个神经外科医生表现的指标缺乏统计能力。英格兰的神经外科单位总体上以及在几个亚专业领域进行了足够数量的手术,可以支持将死亡率用作质量指标。