BMJ  2003;327:563 (6 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.563-c

Letter

Surgeon specific mortality in adult cardiac surgery

Higher risk cases need also to be assessed

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Risk adjusted outcomes are essential in interpreting surgeon specific mortality, but Bridgewater et al say that such adjustments do not discriminate in low risk patients (the majority) when baseline mortality is very low.1 They claim that the differences in surgeons' crude mortality rates are explained by variation in the case mix of high risk patients, which is not amenable to risk stratification. However, true differences are probably detectable only in this group.

An underperforming surgeon is likely to create most havoc in this group of patients. Bridgewater et al recommend "a comparative analysis based on low risk cases without the need for further risk adjustment." All this will achieve is to show that all surgeons fall within two standard deviations of the mean for the average case. Take another pat on the back.

Knowing each surgeon's risk adjusted performance for the high risk cases would be interesting as . . . [Full text of this article]

Michael J O'Leary, specialist in intensive care

St George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales 2217, Australia m.oleary@unsw.edu.au


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Surgeon specific mortality in adult cardiac surgery: comparison between crude and risk stratified data
Ben Bridgewater, Anthony D Grayson, Mark Jackson, Nicholas Brooks, Geir J Grotte, Daniel J M Keenan, Russell Millner, Brian M Fabri, and Mark Jones
BMJ 2003 327: 13-17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ