Dataset Information

A National Comparison of Operative Outcomes of New and Experienced Surgeons.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether outcomes achieved by new surgeons are attributable to inexperience or to differences in the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity.

Background

Although prior studies suggest that new surgeon outcomes are worse than those of experienced surgeons, factors that underlie these phenomena are poorly understood.

Methods

A nationwide observational tapered matching study of outcomes of Medicare patients treated by new and experienced surgeons in 1221 US hospitals (2009-2013). The primary outcome studied is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were examined.

Results

In total, 694,165 patients treated by 8503 experienced surgeons were matched to 68,036 patients treated by 2119 new surgeons working in the same hospitals. New surgeons' patients were older (25.8% aged ≥85 vs 16.3%,P<0.0001) with more emergency admissions (53.9% vs 25.8%,P<0.0001) than experienced surgeons' patients. Patients of new surgeons had a significantly higher baseline 30-day mortality rate compared with patients of experienced surgeons (6.2% vs 4.5%,P<0.0001;OR 1.42 (1.33, 1.52)). The difference remained significant after matching the types of operations performed (6.2% vs 5.1%, P<0.0001; OR 1.24 (1.16, 1.32)) and after further matching on a combination of operation type and emergency admission status (6.2% vs 5.6%, P=0.0007; OR 1.12 (1.05, 1.19)). After matching on operation type, emergency admission status, and patient complexity, the difference between new and experienced surgeons' patients' 30-day mortality became indistinguishable (6.2% vs 5.9%,P=0.2391;OR 1.06 (0.97, 1.16)).

Conclusions

Among Medicare beneficiaries, the majority of the differences in outcomes between new and experienced surgeons are related to the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity rather than new surgeon inexperience.

SUBMITTER: Kelz RR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6898745 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to address the controversy surrounding the effects of duty hour reform on new surgeon performance, we analyzed patients treated by new surgeons following the transition to independent practice.Summary background dataIn 2003, duty hour reform affected all US surgical training programs. Its impact on the performance of new surgeons remains unstudied.MethodsWe studied 30-day mortality among 1,483,074 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general and orthopedic operations between 1999 and 2003 ("traditional" era) and 2009 and 2013 ("modern" era). The operations were performed by 2762 new surgeons trained before the reform, 2119 new surgeons trained following reform and 15,041 experienced surgeons. We used a difference-in-differences analysis comparing outcomes in matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons within each era, controlling for the hospital, operation, and patient risk factors.ResultsTraditional era odds of 30-day mortality among matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons were significantly elevated [odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.22), P < 0.001). The modern era elevated odds of mortality were not significant [OR 1.06; 95% CI (0.97-1.16), P = 0.239]. Relative performance of new and experienced surgeons with respect to 30-day mortality did not appear to change from the traditional era to the modern era [OR 0.93; 95% CI (0.83-1.05), P = 0.233]. There were statistically significant adverse changes over time in relative performance to experienced surgeons in prolonged length of stay [OR 1.08; 95% CI (1.02-1.15), P = 0.015], anesthesia time [9 min; 95% CI (8-10), P < 0.001], and costs [255USD; 95% CI (2-508), P = 0.049].ConclusionsDuty hour reform showed no significant effect on 30-day mortality achieved by new surgeons compared to their more experienced colleagues. Patients of new surgeons, however, trained after duty hour reform displayed some increases in the resources needed for their care.

Project description:BackgroundRehabilitation programmes are used to improve hip fracture outcomes. There is little published trial clinical trial or population-based data on the effects of the type or provider of rehabilitation treatments on hip fracture outcomes. We evaluated the associations of rehabilitation interventions with post-operative hip fracture outcomes.MethodsCross-sectional (2013-2015) analysis of data from the English National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) from all 191 English hospitals treating hip fractures. Of 62,844 NHFD patients, we included 17,708 patients with rehabilitation treatment and 30-day mobility data, and 34,142 patients with rehabilitation treatment and discharge destination data. The intervention was early mobilisation rehabilitation treatments delivered by a physiotherapist (PT, physical therapist in North America) or other clinical staff as identifiable in NHFD. We used ordinal logistic and propensity scoring regression models to adjust for confounding variables including age, sex, pre-fracture mobility, operative delay, and cognitive function and peri-operative risk scores.ResultsIn both the adjusted multivariate and propensity-weighted analyses, mobilisation on the day or the day following surgery is associated with better mobility function 30 days after discharge. However patients mobilised by a PT did not have better mobility compared to mobilisation by other professionals. Patients who received a PT assessment were not protected from poorer mobility 30 days after discharge, compared with those who did not receive an assessment. The discharge destination outcome is also better in mobilised than unmobilised patients, whether done by a PT or another health professional, and the difference persists, slightly attenuated, after propensity weighting.ConclusionsIn addition to the type of health professional initiating mobilisation, data on rehabilitation treatment activity and post-operative gait speed is needed to determine optimum rehabilitation dosage and functional outcome. After adjustment patients mobilised by non-PTs did as well as patients mobilised by PTs, suggesting that PTs' current roles in very early rehabilitation should be reconsidered, with a view to redeploying them to more specialised later rehabilitation activity.

Project description:BackgroundGiven the rarity of pediatric surgical disease, it is important to consider available large-scale data resources as a means to better study and understand relevant disease-processes and their treatments. The Military Health System Data Repository (MDR) includes claims-based information for > 3 million pediatric patients who are dependents of members and retirees of the United States Armed Services, but has not been externally validated. We hypothesized that demographics and selected outcome metrics would be similar between MDR and the previously validated American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Pediatric (NSQIP-P) for several common pediatric surgical operations.MethodsWe selected five commonly performed pediatric surgical operations: appendectomy, pyeloplasty, pyloromyotomy, spinal arthrodesis for scoliosis, and facial reconstruction for cleft palate. Among children who underwent these operations, we compared demographics (age, sex, and race) and clinical outcomes (length of hospital stay [LOS] and mortality) in the MDR and NSQIP-P, including all available overlapping years (2012-2014).ResultsAge, sex, and race were generally similar between the NSQIP-P and MDR. Specifically, these demographics were generally similar between the resources for appendectomy (NSQIP-P, n = 20,602 vs. MDR, n = 4363; median age 11 vs. 12 years; female 40% vs. 41%; white 75% vs. 84%), pyeloplasty (NSQIP-P, n = 786 vs. MDR, n = 112; median age 0.9 vs. 2 years; female 28% vs. 28%; white 71% vs. 80%), pyloromyotomy, (NSQIP-P, n = 3827 vs. MDR, n = 227; median age 34 vs. < 1 year, female 17% vs. 16%; white 76% vs. 89%), scoliosis surgery (NSQIP-P, n = 5743 vs. MDR, n = 95; median age 14.2 vs. 14 years; female 75% vs. 67%; white 72% vs. 75%), and cleft lip/palate repair (NSQIP-P, n = 6202 vs. MDR, n = 749; median age, 1 vs. 1 year; female 42% vs. 45%; white 69% vs. 84%). Length of stay and 30-day mortality were similar between resources. LOS and 30-day mortality were also similar between datasets.ConclusionFor the selected common pediatric surgical operations, patients included in the MDR were comparable to those included in the validated NSQIP-P. The MDR may comprise a valuable clinical outcomes research resource, especially for studying infrequent diseases with follow-up beyond the 30-day peri-operative period.

Project description:Studies indicate an ethnic density effect, whereby an increase in the proportion of racial/ethnic minority people in an area is associated with reduced morbidity among its residents, though evidence is varied. Discrepancies may arise due to differences in the reasons for and periods of migration, and socioeconomic profiles of the racial/ethnic groups and the places where they live. It is important to increase our understanding of how these factors might promote or mitigate ethnic density effects. Cross-national comparative analyses might help in this respect, as they provide greater heterogeneity in historical and contemporary characteristics in the populations of interest, and it is when we consider this heterogeneity in the contexts of peoples' lives that we can more fully understand how social conditions and neighbourhood environments influence the health of migrant and racial/ethnic minority populations. This study analysed two cross-sectional nationally representative surveys, in the US and in England, to explore and contrast the association between two ethnic density measures (black and Caribbean ethnic density) and health and experienced racism among Caribbean people. Results of multilevel logistic regressions show that nominally similar measures of ethnic density perform differently across health outcomes and measures of experienced racism in the two countries. In the US, increased Caribbean ethnic density was associated with improved health and decreased experienced racism, but the opposite was observed in England. On the other hand, increased black ethnic density was associated with improved health and decreased experienced racism of Caribbean English (results not statistically significant), but not of Caribbean Americans. By comparing mutually adjusted Caribbean and black ethnic density effects in the US and England, this study examined the social construction of race and ethnicity as it depends on the racialised and stigmatised meaning attributed to it, and the association that these different racialised identities have on health.

Project description:Objective To examine the effect of surgeon sex on postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing common surgical procedures.Design Population based, retrospective, matched cohort study from 2007 to 2015.Setting Population based cohort of all patients treated in Ontario, Canada.Participants Patients undergoing one of 25 surgical procedures performed by a female surgeon were matched by patient age, patient sex, comorbidity, surgeon volume, surgeon age, and hospital to patients undergoing the same operation by a male surgeon.Interventions Sex of treating surgeon.Main outcome measure The primary outcome was a composite of death, readmission, and complications. We compared outcomes between groups using generalised estimating equations.Results 104?630 patients were treated by 3314 surgeons, 774 female and 2540 male. Before matching, patients treated by female doctors were more likely to be female and younger but had similar comorbidity, income, rurality, and year of surgery. After matching, the groups were comparable. Fewer patients treated by female surgeons died, were readmitted to hospital, or had complications within 30 days (5810 of 52?315, 11.1%, 95% confidence interval 10.9% to 11.4%) than those treated by male surgeons (6046 of 52?315, 11.6%, 11.3% to 11.8%; adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 0.92 to 0.99, P=0.02). Patients treated by female surgeons were less likely to die within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio 0.88; 0.79 to 0.99, P=0.04), but there was no significant difference in readmissions or complications. Stratified analyses by patient, physician, and hospital characteristics did not significant modify the effect of surgeon sex on outcome. A retrospective analysis showed no difference in outcomes by surgeon sex in patients who had emergency surgery, where patients do not usually choose their surgeon.Conclusions After accounting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics, patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30 day mortality and similar surgical outcomes (length of stay, complications, and readmission), compared with those treated by male surgeons. These findings support the need for further examination of the surgical outcomes and mechanisms related to physicians and the underlying processes and patterns of care to improve mortality, complications, and readmissions for all patients.