Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:730 (13 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.39356.610544.BE
Measuring outcomes is necessary but difficult to get right
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In this week's BMJ, Westaby and colleagues compare the value of two sources of data for determining mortality 30 days after congenital cardiac surgery—hospital episode statistics (HES) and the central cardiac audit database.1 They find that the central cardiac audit database is more complete than HES, but that individual centres need investment to improve the completeness and accuracy of their data. Their investigation follows a study published in the BMJ in 2004 that used HES to compare mortality from congenital heart surgery in different UK centres.2 The study suggested that Oxford had significantly higher mortality than the national average, and the results were reported widely by the media. So have we learnt anything new about the relative value of routinely collected versus specifically collected sources of data?
Routinely collected patient data are regularly analysed to investigate outcome. Equally regularly the results are contested by the specifically collected dataset, which
Stephen Singleton, medical director
NHS North East, Newcastle upon Tyne NE15 8NY
stephen.singleton@northeast.nhs.uk
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+