Public disclosure of surgeon-specific report cards: current status of the debate

Public disclosure of hospital clinicians' performance data: insights from medical directors

Objective This study gathered information from public hospital chief medical officers to better understand underlying mechanisms through which public reporting affects institutional behavioural change and decision making towards quality improvement. Methods This qualitative study used thematic analysis of 17 semistructured, in-depth interviews among a peak group of medical directors representing 26 health services in Victoria, Australia. Results The medical directors indicated a high level of in-principle support for public reporting of identifiable, individual clinician-level data. However, they also described varying conceptual understanding of what public reporting of performance data is. Overall, they considered public reporting of individual clinicians' performance data a means to improve health care quality, increase transparency and inform consumer healthcare decision making. Most identified caveats that would need to be met before such data should be publicly released, in particular the need to resolve issues around data quality and timeliness, context and interpretation and ethics. Acknowledgement of the public's right to access individual clinician-level data was at odds with some medical directors' belief that such reporting may diminish trust between clinicians and their employers, thus eroding rather than motivating quality improvement. Conclusions Public reporting of identifiable individual healthcare clinicians' performance data is an issue that merits robust research and debate given the effects such reporting may have on doctors and on hospital quality and safety. What is known about the topic? The public reporting of individual clinician-level data is a mechanism used in some countries, but not in Australia, for increasing health care transparency and quality. Clinician-level public reporting of doctors' performance attracts contention and debate in Australia. What does this paper add? This paper informs debate around the public reporting of individual clinician-level performance data. Among a discrete cohort of senior hospital administrators in Victoria, Australia, there was strong in-principle support for such public reporting as a means to improve hospital quality and safety. What are the implications for practitioners? Before public reporting of individual clinician performance data could occur in Australia, resolution of issues would be required relating to legality and ethics, data context and interpretation, data quality and timeliness.

Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector

OBJECTIVES

National mandatory public performance reporting (PPR) for Australian public hospitals, including measures of cancer surgery waiting times, was introduced in 2011. PPR is voluntary for private hospitals. The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data is used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer when selecting a hospital for elective surgery and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs.

DESIGN

A national cross-sectional postal questionnaire.

SETTING

Australian private healthcare sector.

PARTICIPANTS

Private patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital for elective surgery (n=243) in 2016.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' choice of hospital, use of PPR information and preferred areas of PPR information. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-eight respondents (94%) attended a private hospital. Almost half could choose a hospital. Choice of hospital was not influenced by PPR data (92% unaware) but by their specialist (90%). Respondents considered PPR to be important (71%) but they did not want to see the information, preferring their general practitioners (GPs) to tell them about it (40%). Respondents considered surgery costs (59%), complications (58%) and recovery success rates (57%) to be important areas of information that should be publicly reported. Almost half suggested that quality indicators should be reported at the individual clinician level. Analysis of the open-ended questions identified four themes: (1) decision-making factors; (2) data credibility; (3) unmet information needs and (4) unintended consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

PPR of hospital data had no substantial impact on patients' choice of hospital. Nonetheless, many respondents expressed interest in using it in future. To increase PPR awareness and usability, personalised and integrated information on cost and quality of hospitals is required. Dissemination of PPR information via specialists and GPs could assist patients to interpret the data and support decision-making.

Provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery

BACKGROUND

A consumer model of health supports that people undergoing elective surgery should be informed about the past operative performance of their surgeon before making two important decisions: 1. to consent to the proposed surgery, and 2. to have a particular doctor perform the surgery. This information arguably helps empower patients to participate in their care. While surgeons' performance data are available in some settings, there continues to be controversy over the provision of such data to patients, and the question of whether consumers should, or want to, be provided with this information.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of providing a surgeon's performance data to people considering elective surgery on patient-based and service utilisation outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2009, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to 28 September 2009); EMBASE (Ovid) (1988 to 28 September 2009); PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to 28 September 2009); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to 20 October 2009); Current Contents (Ovid) (1992 to 23 November 2009); and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 20 October 2009).For this update, we searched: CENTRAL (2009 to 3 March 2014); MEDLINE (Ovid) (2009 to 3 March 2014); EMBASE (Ovid) (2009 to 3 March 2014); PsycINFO (Ovid) (2009 to 9 March 2014); CINAHL (EBSCO) (2009 to 9 March 2014), Current Contents (Web of Science) (November 2009 to 21 March 2014), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (2009 to 21 March 2014). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs and controlled before and after studies (CBAs), in which an individual surgeon's performance data were provided to people considering elective surgery. We considered the CBAs for inclusion from 2009 onwards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (AH, SH) independently assessed all titles, abstracts, or both of retrieved citations. We identified no studies for inclusion. Consequently, we conducted no data collection or analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no studies that met the inclusion criteria; therefore, there are no results to report on the effect of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies reporting the impact of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery. This is an important finding in itself. While the public reporting of a surgeon's performance is not a new concept, the efficacy of this data for individual patients has not been empirically tested. A review of qualitative studies or new primary qualitative research may be useful to determine what interventions are currently in use and explore the attitudes of consumers and professionals towards such interventions.

Repeat surgery after lumbar decompression for herniated disc: the quality implications of hospital and surgeon variation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Repeat lumbar spine surgery is generally an undesirable outcome. Variation in repeat surgery rates may be because of patient characteristics, disease severity, or hospital- and surgeon-related factors. However, little is known about population-level variation in reoperation rates.

PURPOSE

To examine hospital- and surgeon-level variation in reoperation rates after lumbar herniated disc surgery and to relate these to published benchmarks.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective analysis of a discharge registry including all nonfederal hospitals in Washington State.

METHODS

We identified adults who underwent an initial inpatient lumbar decompression for herniated disc from 1997 to 2007. We then performed generalized linear mixed-effect logistic regressions, controlling for patient characteristics and comorbidity, to examine the variation in reoperation rates within 90 days, 1 year, and 4 years.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 29,529 patients with a mean age of 47.5 years, 61% privately insured, and 15% having any comorbidity. The age-, sex-, insurance-, and comorbidity-adjusted mean rate of reoperation among hospitals was 1.9% at 90 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.1), with a range from 1.1% to 3.4%; 6.4% at 1 year (95% CI, 3.9-10.6), with a range from 2.8% to 12.5%; and 13.8% at 4 years (95% CI, 8.8-19.8), with a range from 8.1% to 24.5%. The adjusted mean reoperation rates of surgeons were 1.9% at 90 days (95% CI, 1.4-2.4) with a range from 1.2% to 4.6%, 6.1% at 1 year (95% CI, 4.8-7.7) with a range from 4.3% to 10.5%, and 13.2% at 4 years (95% CI, 11.3-15.5) with a range from 10.0% to 19.3%. Multilevel random-effect models suggested that variation across surgeons was greater than that of hospitals and that this effect increased with long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidity, we observed a large variation in reoperation rates across hospitals and surgeons after lumbar discectomy, a relatively simple spinal procedure. These findings suggest uncertainty about indications for repeat surgery, variations in perioperative care, or variations in quality of care.

Provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery

BACKGROUND

A consumer model of health supports that elective surgery patients should be informed about the past operative performance of their surgeon before making two important decisions: 1) to consent to the proposed surgery, and 2) to have a particular doctor perform the surgery. This information arguably helps empower patients to participate in their care. While surgeons' performance data are available in some settings there continues to be controversy over the provision of such data to patients, and the question of whether consumers should, or want to, be provided with this information.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of providing a surgeon's performance data to people considering elective surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 20 Oct 2009); MEDLINE (Ovid) (28 Sep 2009); EMBASE (Ovid) (28 Sep 2009); PsycINFO (Ovid) (28 Sep 2009); CINAHL (Ebsco) (20 Oct 2009), Current Contents (Ovid) (23 Nov 2009), and Proquest Dissertations and Theses (20 October 2009). We searched all databases from their start dates.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and controlled before and after studies, in which an individual surgeon's performance data were provided to patients considering elective surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of retrieved citations. No studies were identified for inclusion. Consequently, no data collection or analysis was conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no studies that met the inclusion criteria, therefore there are no results to report on the effect of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies reporting the impact of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery. This is an important finding in itself. While the public reporting of a surgeon's performance is not a new concept, the efficacy of this data for individual patients has not been empirically tested. We recommend that a review of qualitative studies or new primary qualitative research be conducted to determine what interventions are currently in use and explore the attitudes of consumers and professionals towards such interventions.

Primer on risk management for the gynaecological laparoscopist

The gynaecologist practising operative laparoscopy should be seen as part of a team that actively promotes patient safety, minimizing risks and optimizing outcomes. Building a culture of safety which focuses on proactive initiatives to manage risk and remove individual 'blame' should be an integral part of any operative laparoscopy unit. Thus, when adverse clinical incidents or outcomes occur, reporting of such events is encouraged and seen to be acceptable behaviour within the framework of complete patient care. By recognizing and analysing adverse outcomes, the team can develop strategies to prevent or manage a recurrence of such events. Implementing systems or solutions to prevent harm to patients is the cornerstone of any risk management programme. In this review, we discuss the development and implementation of risk management strategies in the clinical setting, and in particular how this applies to operative laparoscopy.

CUMULATIVE SUM TECHNIQUES FOR SURGEONS: A BRIEF REVIEW

There has been increasing awareness of the need for monitoring the quality of health care, particularly in the area of surgery. The Cumulative Summation (Cusum) techniques have emerged as a popular tool for performance monitoring in surgery. They allow one to judge whether a given variation in performance is probably due to chance or greater than could be expected from random variation and thus a cause for concern. The Cusum techniques are simple to carry out and can be applied to any surgical process with a binary outcome. Four parameters need to be set in advance: acceptable outcome rate, unacceptable outcome rate, Type I and Type II error rates. In this article, we review the history, statistical methods and potential applications for the Cusum techniques in the field of surgery and illustrate the two common forms of charting (cumulative failure and Cusum charting) by using unadjusted outcome data from the Geelong Hospital and St Vincent's Hospital cardiac surgery databases.

Sea change: public reporting and the safety and quality of the Australian health care system

The pursuit of demonstrable safety and quality in health care is an evolving process; there has been notable progress in measuring safety and quality in Australia. The first attempts to measure outcomes were in the field of anaesthesia, while national perinatal mortality reports have provided clinically useful information for many years. Nationwide reporting by the Quality in Australian Health Care Study (QAHCS) in 2005 triggered a more systemic approach to safety and quality. Systemic reporting has begun to emerge in anaesthesia and surgery, for implantable devices, perinatal services and sentinel events; in some jurisdictions, statewide incident data are now reported annually. While debate continues about the issue of individual clinician performance, the real issue is the effectiveness of any reporting system to bring about change in both safety and quality.