Can surgical performance benchmarking be generalized across multiple outcomes databases: A comparison of University HealthSystem Consortium and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Anton Simorov, Nathan Bills, Valerie Shostrom, Eugene Boilesen, Dmitry Oleynikov

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Surgeon's performance is tracked using patient outcomes databases. We compared data on patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2 large databases with significant institutional overlap to see if either patient characteristics or outcomes were similar enough to accurately compare performance.

Methods Data from 2009 to 2011 were collected from University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). UHC and NSQIP collect data from over 200 and 400 medical centers, respectively, with an overlap of 70. Patient demographics, pre-existing medical conditions, operative details, and outcomes were compared.

Results Fifty-six thousand one hundred ninety-seven UHC patients and 56,197 NSQIP patients met criteria. Groups were matched by age, sex, and pre-existing comorbidities. Outcomes for NSQIP and UHC differed, including mortality (.20% NSQIP vs.12% UHC; P <.0001), morbidity (2.0% vs 1.5%; P <.0001), wound infection (.07% vs.33%; P <.0001), pneumonia (.38% vs.75%; P <.0001), urinary tract infections (.62% vs.01%; P <.0001), and length of hospital stay (1.8 ± 7.5 vs 3.8 ± 3.7 days; P =.0004), respectively.

Conclusions Surgical outcomes are significantly different between databases and resulting performance data may be significantly biased. A single unified national database may be required to correct this problem.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)942-948
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican journal of surgery
Volume208
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Quality Improvement
Databases
Length of Stay
Preexisting Condition Coverage
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Wound Infection
Urinary Tract Infections
Comorbidity
Pneumonia
Research Design
Demography
Morbidity
Mortality

Keywords

  • Cholecystectomy
  • Comparison
  • Database
  • Laparoscopy
  • Outcomes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Can surgical performance benchmarking be generalized across multiple outcomes databases : A comparison of University HealthSystem Consortium and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. / Simorov, Anton; Bills, Nathan; Shostrom, Valerie; Boilesen, Eugene; Oleynikov, Dmitry.

In: American journal of surgery, Vol. 208, No. 6, 01.12.2014, p. 942-948.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c4a3ff5544974d64aafbea116596db69,
title = "Can surgical performance benchmarking be generalized across multiple outcomes databases: A comparison of University HealthSystem Consortium and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program",
abstract = "Background Surgeon's performance is tracked using patient outcomes databases. We compared data on patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2 large databases with significant institutional overlap to see if either patient characteristics or outcomes were similar enough to accurately compare performance.Methods Data from 2009 to 2011 were collected from University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). UHC and NSQIP collect data from over 200 and 400 medical centers, respectively, with an overlap of 70. Patient demographics, pre-existing medical conditions, operative details, and outcomes were compared.Results Fifty-six thousand one hundred ninety-seven UHC patients and 56,197 NSQIP patients met criteria. Groups were matched by age, sex, and pre-existing comorbidities. Outcomes for NSQIP and UHC differed, including mortality (.20{\%} NSQIP vs.12{\%} UHC; P <.0001), morbidity (2.0{\%} vs 1.5{\%}; P <.0001), wound infection (.07{\%} vs.33{\%}; P <.0001), pneumonia (.38{\%} vs.75{\%}; P <.0001), urinary tract infections (.62{\%} vs.01{\%}; P <.0001), and length of hospital stay (1.8 ± 7.5 vs 3.8 ± 3.7 days; P =.0004), respectively.Conclusions Surgical outcomes are significantly different between databases and resulting performance data may be significantly biased. A single unified national database may be required to correct this problem.",
keywords = "Cholecystectomy, Comparison, Database, Laparoscopy, Outcomes",
author = "Anton Simorov and Nathan Bills and Valerie Shostrom and Eugene Boilesen and Dmitry Oleynikov",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.08.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "208",
pages = "942--948",
journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0002-9610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can surgical performance benchmarking be generalized across multiple outcomes databases

T2 - A comparison of University HealthSystem Consortium and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

AU - Simorov, Anton

AU - Bills, Nathan

AU - Shostrom, Valerie

AU - Boilesen, Eugene

AU - Oleynikov, Dmitry

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Background Surgeon's performance is tracked using patient outcomes databases. We compared data on patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2 large databases with significant institutional overlap to see if either patient characteristics or outcomes were similar enough to accurately compare performance.Methods Data from 2009 to 2011 were collected from University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). UHC and NSQIP collect data from over 200 and 400 medical centers, respectively, with an overlap of 70. Patient demographics, pre-existing medical conditions, operative details, and outcomes were compared.Results Fifty-six thousand one hundred ninety-seven UHC patients and 56,197 NSQIP patients met criteria. Groups were matched by age, sex, and pre-existing comorbidities. Outcomes for NSQIP and UHC differed, including mortality (.20% NSQIP vs.12% UHC; P <.0001), morbidity (2.0% vs 1.5%; P <.0001), wound infection (.07% vs.33%; P <.0001), pneumonia (.38% vs.75%; P <.0001), urinary tract infections (.62% vs.01%; P <.0001), and length of hospital stay (1.8 ± 7.5 vs 3.8 ± 3.7 days; P =.0004), respectively.Conclusions Surgical outcomes are significantly different between databases and resulting performance data may be significantly biased. A single unified national database may be required to correct this problem.

AB - Background Surgeon's performance is tracked using patient outcomes databases. We compared data on patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2 large databases with significant institutional overlap to see if either patient characteristics or outcomes were similar enough to accurately compare performance.Methods Data from 2009 to 2011 were collected from University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). UHC and NSQIP collect data from over 200 and 400 medical centers, respectively, with an overlap of 70. Patient demographics, pre-existing medical conditions, operative details, and outcomes were compared.Results Fifty-six thousand one hundred ninety-seven UHC patients and 56,197 NSQIP patients met criteria. Groups were matched by age, sex, and pre-existing comorbidities. Outcomes for NSQIP and UHC differed, including mortality (.20% NSQIP vs.12% UHC; P <.0001), morbidity (2.0% vs 1.5%; P <.0001), wound infection (.07% vs.33%; P <.0001), pneumonia (.38% vs.75%; P <.0001), urinary tract infections (.62% vs.01%; P <.0001), and length of hospital stay (1.8 ± 7.5 vs 3.8 ± 3.7 days; P =.0004), respectively.Conclusions Surgical outcomes are significantly different between databases and resulting performance data may be significantly biased. A single unified national database may be required to correct this problem.

KW - Cholecystectomy

KW - Comparison

KW - Database

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Outcomes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84916624413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84916624413&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.08.016

DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.08.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 25440482

AN - SCOPUS:84916624413

VL - 208

SP - 942

EP - 948

JO - American Journal of Surgery

JF - American Journal of Surgery

SN - 0002-9610

IS - 6

ER -