Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21477429›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2011

Hospital mortality under surgical care.

O Aziz, D Fink, L Hobbs, G Williams, T C Holme

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. The Waterlow score for risk assessment in surgical patients.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2013
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

O AzizDepartment of Surgery, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
D Fink
L Hobbs
G Williams
T C Holme
Lister Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe 'hospital standardised mortality ratio' (HSMR) has been used in England since 1999 to measure NHS hospital performance. Large variations in reported HSMR between English hospitals have recently led to heavy criticism of their use as a surrogate measure of hospital performance. This paper aims to review the mortality data for a consultant general surgeon contributed by his NHS trust over a 3-year period as part of the trust's HSMR calculation and evaluate the accuracy of coding the diagnoses and covariates for case mix adjustment. SUBJECTS AND

methodsThe Dr Foster Intelligence database was interrogated to extract the NHS trust's HSMR benchmark data on inpatient mortality for the surgeon from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2009 and compared to the hospital notes.

results30 patients were identified of whom 12 had no evidence of being managed by the surgeon. This represents a potential 40% inaccuracy rate in designating consultant responsibility. The remaining 18 patients could be separated into 'operative' (11 patients) and 'non-operative' (7 patients) groups. Only 27% in the operative group and 43% of the non-operative mortality group respectively had a Charlson co-morbidity index recorded despite 94% of the cases having significant co-morbidities

conclusionsHighlighting crude and inaccurate clinician-specific mortality data when only 1-5% of deaths under surgical care may be associated with avoidable adverse events seems potentially irresponsible.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityDiagnosis-Related GroupsHospitalizationHumansQuality Indicators, Health CareSurgical Procedures, Operative

Identifiers

PMID21477429
PMCPMC3291133
OpenAlexW2010877153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.