» Articles » PMID: 25899023

Should Surgical Outcomes Be Published?

Overview
Journal J R Soc Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2015 Apr 23
PMID 25899023
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Despite publishing surgical outcomes being a positive step forwards in the progression of England's healthcare system, it has no doubt been faced with criticism and reservations. This review article aims to discuss the pros and cons of publishing individual surgical outcomes, as well as the challenges faced. Publishing outcomes requires data from a number of sources such as national clinical audits, hospital episode statistics, patient-reported outcomes, registers and information from revalidation. As yet, eight surgical specialties have begun publishing their data, including cardiac (coronary artery bypass graft, valve and aortic surgery), endocrine (thyroidectomy, lobectomy, isthmusectomy), orthopaedic (hip and knee replacement), urological (full and partial nephrectomies, nephroureterectomy), colorectal (bowel tumour removal), upper gastrointestinal (stomach cancer and oesophageal cancer removal, bariatric surgery), ear, nose and throat surgery (larynx, oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and salivary gland cancer removal), as well as vascular surgery (abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy). However, not all procedures have been addressed. Despite the controversy surrounding the topic of publishing surgical outcomes, the advantages of reporting outcomes outweigh the disadvantages, and these challenges can be overcome, to create a more reliable, trustworthy and transparent NHS. Perhaps one of the main challenges has been the difficulty in collecting large amounts of clinically significant data able to quantify the performance of surgeons.

Citing Articles

Social Vulnerability Index and Health Outcomes in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Higginbotham J, Segovia L, Rohm K, Anderson C, Breitenstein S Fam Community Health. 2025; 48(2):81-96.

PMID: 39807786 PMC: 11832337. DOI: 10.1097/FCH.0000000000000421.


Mortality as an indicator of quality of neurosurgical care in England: a retrospective cohort study.

Wahba A, Cromwell D, Hutchinson P, Mathew R, Phillips N BMJ Open. 2022; 12(11):e067409.

PMID: 36332948 PMC: 9639111. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067409.


Endovascular repair of symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm: a seminal case in West Africa.

Wu L, Botwe B Ghana Med J. 2022; 55(4):311-314.

PMID: 35957931 PMC: 9334969. DOI: 10.4314/gmj.v55i4.13.


Analysis of Surgical Mortalities Using the Fishbone Model for Quality Improvement in Surgical Disciplines.

Moeng M, Luvhengo T World J Surg. 2022; 46(5):1006-1014.

PMID: 35119512 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06414-8.


Focus Group Discussion as a Tool to Assess Patient-Based Outcomes, Practical Tips for Conducting Focus Group Discussion for Medical Students-Learning With an Example.

Zacharia B, Pai P, Paul M J Patient Exp. 2021; 8:23743735211034276.

PMID: 34368434 PMC: 8317240. DOI: 10.1177/23743735211034276.


References
1.
Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M . Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ. 2001; 322(7285):517-9. PMC: 26554. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7285.517. View

2.
Sutton M, Nikolova S, Boaden R, Lester H, McDonald R, Roland M . Reduced mortality with hospital pay for performance in England. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(19):1821-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1114951. View

3.
Wang T, Ahmed K, Khan M, Dasgupta P . Quality-of-care framework in urological cancers: where do we stand?. BJU Int. 2011; 109(10):1436-43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10747.x. View

4.
Wise J . Surgeon leaders support publishing outcomes but warn of limitations. BMJ. 2013; 346:f4187. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f4187. View

5.
Iacobucci G . Patient survival rates for individual surgeons will be published from 2013. BMJ. 2012; 345:e8617. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e8617. View