Literature DB >> 11160779

Risk-adjusted surgical outcomes.

J Daley1, W G Henderson, S F Khuri.   

Abstract

Measures of risk-adjusted outcome are particularly suited for the assessment of the quality of surgical care. The reliability of measures of quality that use surgical outcomes is enhanced by prospective data acquisition and should be adjusted for the preoperative severity of illness. Such measures should be based only on reliable and validated data, and they should apply state-of-the-art analytical methods. The risk-adjusted postoperative mortality rate is useful as a quality measure only in specialties and operations expected to have a high rate of postoperative deaths. Risk-adjusted complications are more common but are limited as a comparative measure of quality by a lack of uniform definitions and data collection mechanisms. In specialties in which the expected postoperative mortality is low, risk-adjusted functional outcomes are promising measures for the assessment of the quality of surgical care. Measures of cost and patient satisfaction should also be incorporated in systems designed to measure the quality and cost-effectiveness of surgical care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11160779     DOI: 10.1146/annurev.med.52.1.275

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Rev Med        ISSN: 0066-4219            Impact factor:   13.739


  24 in total

1.  Postoperative complications after gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Elisabeth A Erekson; Sallis O Yip; Maria M Ciarleglio; Terri R Fried
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  The Leapfrog volume criteria may fall short in identifying high-quality surgical centers.

Authors:  Caprice K Christian; Michael L Gustafson; Rebecca A Betensky; Jennifer Daley; Michael J Zinner
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Rates of surgical site infection as a performance measure: Are we ready?

Authors:  Fernando Martín Biscione
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-11-30

4.  Risk-adjustment in hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Hemant M Kocher; Paris P Tekkis; Palepu Gopal; Ameet G Patel; Simon Cottam; Irving S Benjamin
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-04-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  The volume-outcome relationship: don't believe everything you see.

Authors:  Caprice K Christian; Michael L Gustafson; Rebecca A Betensky; Jennifer Daley; Michael J Zinner
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Differences in hospital performance for noncancer vs cancer colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Zaid M Abdelsattar; Robert W Krell; Darrell A Campbell; Samantha Hendren; Sandra L Wong
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Epidemiological study of provision of cholecystectomy in England from 2000 to 2009: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics.

Authors:  Sidhartha Sinha; David Hofman; David L Stoker; Peter J Friend; Jan D Poloniecki; Matt M Thompson; Peter J E Holt
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Evaluation of hospital inpatient complications: a planning approach.

Authors:  Ronald J Lagoe; Gert P Westert
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  In-hospital mortality after stomach cancer surgery in Spain and relationship with hospital volume of interventions.

Authors:  Marisa Baré; Joan Cabrol; Jordi Real; Gemma Navarro; Rafel Campo; Carles Pericay; Antonio Sarría
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Potential hospital cost-savings attributed to improvements in outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery following self-audit.

Authors:  Louisa G Gordon; Andreas Obermair
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.