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 2008;336:900-901 (26 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.39545.504792.80 (published 21 April 2008)
Data should be monitored and acted on at local and national levels
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Surgical outcomes are increasingly being scrutinised through national audit and publication of unadjusted league tables.1 Two accompanying studies report different ways of measuring surgical outcomes and performance—one in groin hernia repair and the other in percutaneous coronary intervention.2 3 Public scrutiny of surgical outcomes should be encouraged, but the data and statistical analysis should be robust, meaningful, and accurate. Unadjusted league tables are often misleading because they take insufficient account of the patients risk factors. Commercial organisations can also produce in-depth analyses of NHS data, but many clinicians argue that the accuracy of the raw data is questionable and that such analyses are expensive and of unknown utility.
Encouraging clinicians to take responsibility for data analysis at local and national levels could improve our understanding of surgical results and help develop ways to improve outcomes. The outcomes studied should be important and easy to measure—for example, postoperative death or disease specific
Peter J E Holt, clinical lecturer in vascular surgery1, Jan D Poloniecki, reader in medical statistics2, Matt M Thompson, professor in vascular surgery1
1 St Georges Vascular Institute, London SW17 0QT, 2 Community Health Sciences, St Georges, University of London, London SW17 0RE
peteholt@btinternet.com
Read all Rapid Responses