Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33148601›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Effect of monitoring surgical outcomes using control charts to reduce major adverse events in patients: cluster randomised trial.

Antoine Duclos, François Chollet, Léa Pascal, Hector Ormando, Matthew J Carty, Stéphanie Polazzi, Jean-Christophe Lifante, SHEWHART Trial Group

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02569450 (The Impact of Surgical Outcomes Monitoring Using Control Chart on Surgical Performance), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT02569450 completednot on this map

The Impact of Surgical Outcomes Monitoring Using Control Chart on Surgical Performance: A Cluster Randomized Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorHospices Civils de LyonRan2015 to 2018Enrolled157,594ConditionsDigestive SurgeryArmsSurgical outcomes monitoring using Shewhart control chart
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Hidden costs of surgical complications: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Comment on A Method for Continuous Surgeon Improvement in Rectal Cancer: Observed Minus Expected (O-E) Chart Versus CUSUM Chart.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Antoine DuclosHealth Services and Performance Research lab (HeSPeR, EA 7425), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France antoineduclos@yahoo.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-8915-4203
François CholletHealth Data Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, France.
Léa PascalHealth Data Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, France.
Hector OrmandoHuman Resource Department, EM Lyon Business School, France.
Matthew J CartyCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Stéphanie PolazziHealth Services and Performance Research lab (HeSPeR, EA 7425), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France.
Jean-Christophe LifanteHealth Services and Performance Research lab (HeSPeR, EA 7425), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France.
SHEWHART Trial Group
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRHospices Civils de Lyon · FRBrigham and Women's Hospital · USÉcole de management de Lyon · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the effect of introducing prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts and regular feedback on indicators to surgical teams on major adverse events in patients.

designNational, parallel, cluster randomised trial embedding a difference-in-differences analysis.

setting40 surgical departments of hospitals across France.

participants155 362 adults who underwent digestive tract surgery. 20 of the surgical departments were randomised to prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts with regular feedback on indicators (intervention group) and 20 to usual care only (control group).

interventionsProspective monitoring of outcomes using control charts, provided in sets quarterly, with regular feedback on indicators (intervention hospitals). To facilitate implementation of the programme, study champion partnerships were established at each site, comprising a surgeon and another member of the surgical team (surgeon, anaesthetist, or nurse), and were trained to conduct team meetings, display posters in operating rooms, maintain a logbook, and devise an improvement plan.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of major adverse events (inpatient death, intensive care stay, reoperation, and severe complications) within 30 days after surgery. Changes in surgical outcomes were compared before and after implementation of the programme between intervention and control hospitals, with adjustment for patient mix and clustering.

results75 047 patients were analysed in the intervention hospitals (37 579 before and 37 468 after programme implementation) versus 80 315 in the control hospitals (41 548 and 38 767). After introduction of the control chart, the absolute risk of a major adverse event was reduced by 0.9% (95% confidence interval 0.4% to 1.4%) in intervention compared with control hospitals, corresponding to 114 patients (70 to 280) who needed to receive the intervention to prevent one major adverse event. A significant decrease in major adverse events (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.96), patient death (0.84, 0.71 to 0.99), and intensive care stay (0.85, 0.76 to 0.94) was found in intervention compared with control hospitals. The same trend was observed for reoperation (0.91, 0.82 to 1.00), whereas severe complications remained unchanged (0.96, 0.87 to 1.07). Among the intervention hospitals, the effect size was proportional to the degree of control chart implementation witnessed. Highly compliant hospitals experienced a more important reduction in major adverse events (0.84, 0.77 to 0.92), patient death (0.78, 0.63 to 0.97), intensive care stay (0.76, 0.67 to 0.87), and reoperation (0.84, 0.74 to 0.96).

conclusionsThe implementation of control charts with feedback on indicators to surgical teams was associated with concomitant reductions in major adverse events in patients. Understanding variations in surgical outcomes and how to provide safe surgery is imperative for improvements.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02569450.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresQuality Indicators, Health CareAdultAgedCluster AnalysisFeedbackFemaleFranceHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID33148601
PMCPMC7610189
OpenAlexW3096355987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.