Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality in Surgery: Current Issues for the Future

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kohn LT (ed). CJRWDM. To Err is human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington DC; National Academy Press, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  2. Donabedian A (ed). The Definition of Quality and Approaches to Its assessment. Ann Arbor, MI; Health Administration Press, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anonymous. AMA initiative on quality of medical care and professional self-regulation. J.A.M.A. 1986;256:1036–1037

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lohr KN, Donaldson MS, Harris-Wehling J. Medicare: a strategy for quality assurance V: quality of care in a changing health care environment. QRB Qual. Rev. Bull. 1992;18:120–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rubin H. Evidence Based Surgery. Lewiston, NY, B.C. Decker, Inc., March 2000

  6. Keeler EB, Rubenstein LV, Kahn KL, et al. Hospital characteristics and quality of care. J.A.M.A. 1992;268:1709–1714

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Passaro E Jr, Organ CH Jr, Ernest A. Codman: the improper Bostonian. Bull. Am. Coll. Surg. 1999;84:16–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:491–507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwartz SR, Yueh B, Maynard C, et al. Predictors of wound complications after laryngectomy: a study of over 2000 patients. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2004;131:61–68

    Google Scholar 

  10. Billingsley KG, Hur K, Henderson WG, et al. Outcome after pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancer: an analysis from the Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J. Gastrointest. Surg 2003;7:484–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bailey SH, Bull DA, Harpole DH, et al. Outcomes after esophagectomy: a ten-year prospective cohort. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2003;75:217–222; discussion 222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grossmann EM, Longo WE, Virgo KS, et al. Morbidity and mortality of gastrectomy for cancer in Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Surgery 2002;131:484–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Margenthaler JA, Longo WE, Virgo KS, et al. Risk factors for adverse outcomes after the surgical treatment of appendicitis in adults. Ann. Surg. 2003;238:59–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE, et al. Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 2000;43:83–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Arozullah AM, Daley J, Henderson WG, et al. Multifactorial risk index for predicting postoperative respiratory failure in men after major noncardiac surgery. The National Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann. Surg. 2000;232:242–253

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gibbs J, Cull W, Henderson W, et al. Preoperative serum albumin level as a predictor of operative mortality and morbidity: results from the National VA Surgical Risk Study. Arch. Surg. 1999;134:36–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fink AS, Campbell DA Jr, Mentzer RM Jr, et al. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Ann. Surg. 2002;236:344–353; discussion 353–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chassin MR. Achieving and sustaining improved quality: lessons from New York State and cardiac surgery. Health Aff. (Millwood) 2002;21:40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dziuban SW Jr, McIlduff JB, Miller SJ, et al. How a New York cardiac surgery program uses outcomes data. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1994;58:1871–1876

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ko CY, Chang JT, Chaudhry S, et al. Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of in-hospital outcome for colon cancer resection? Surgery 2002;132:268–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E, et al. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2003;83:68–78; discussion 78–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harmon JW, Tang DG, Gordon TA, et al. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann. Surg, 1999;230:404–411; discussion 411–413

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr, Knol JA, et al. Hepatic resection in the United States: indications, outcomes, and hospital procedural volumes from a nationally representative database. Arch. Surg. 2003;138:185–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cowan JA Jr, Dimick JB, Thompson BG, et al. Surgeon volume as an indicator of outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: an effect independent of specialty practice and hospital volume. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2002;195:814–821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yao SL, Lu-Yao G. Population-based study of relationships between hospital volume of prostatectomies, patient outcomes, and length of hospital stay. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1950–1956

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ellison LM, Heaney JA, Birkmeyer JD. The effect of hospital volume on mortality and resource use after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2000;163:867–869

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett J, et al. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2001;83:1622–1629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sosa JA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, et al. The importance of surgeon experience for clinical and economic outcomes from thyroidectomy. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:320–330

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Witt PD, Wahlen JC, Marsh JL, et al. The effect of surgeon experience on velopharyngeal functional outcome following palatoplasty: is there a learning curve? Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1998;102:1375–1384

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL, et al. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003;21:401–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hewitt M. Institute of Medicine Report: Interpreting the Volume-Outcome Relationship in the Context of Health Care Quality. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  32. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann. Surg. 1999;230:414–429; discussion 429–432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Betensky RA, et al. The Leapfrog volume criteria may fall short in identifying high-quality surgical centers. Ann. Surg. 2003;238:447–455; discussion 455–457

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu JH, Etzioni DA, O’Connell JB, et al. Using volume criteria: do California hospitals measure up? J. Surg Res. 2003;113:96–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hannan EL, Popp AJ, Feustel P, et al. Association of surgical specialty and processes of care with patient outcomes for carotid endarterectomy. Stroke 2001;32:2890–2897

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ferguson TB Jr, Peterson ED, Coombs LP, et al. Use of continuous quality improvement to increase use of process measures in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J.A.M.A. 2003;290:49–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bozic KJ, Pierce RG, Herndon JH. Health care technology assessment. Basic principles, clinical applications. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2004;86-A:1305–1314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Anderson GF, Hurst J, Hussey PS, et al. Health spending and outcomes: trends in OECD countries, 1960–1998. Health Aff. (Millwood) 2000;19:150–157

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Clemmitt M. Perspectives. U.S. spends a lot of on health but doesn’t know what it buys. Med Health 2000; 54(suppl):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  40. Royal HD. Technology assessment: scientific challenges. A.J.R. Am.J. Roentgenol. 1994;163:503–507

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Howell JD. The physician’s role in a world of technology. Acad. Med. 1999;74:244–247

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jacoby I, Pauker SG. Technology assessment in health care: group process and decision theory. Isr. J. Med. Sci. 1986;22:183–190

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Robinson JC. Physician-hospital integration and the economic theory of the firm. Med. Care Res. Rev. 1997;54:3–24; discussion 25–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lindenthal JJ, Lako CJ, van der Waal MA, et al. Quality and cost of healthcare: a cross-national comparison of American and Dutch attitudes. Am. J. Manag. Care 1999;5:173–181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilkinson AH Jr. Acute abdomen. How to balance costs and quality care. Semin. Pediatr. Surg. 1997;6:88–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Stukel TA, et al. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann. Intern. Med. 2003;138:288–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Stevens C. Guidelines spread, but how much impact will they have? Med. Econ. 1993;70:66–70, 72–76, 82–84 passim

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shively EH, Heine MJ, Schell RH, et al. Practicing surgeons lead in quality care, safety, and cost control. Ann. Surg. 2004;239:752–760; discussion 760–762

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Allen JW, Polk HC Jr. A study of added costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on surgery preference cards. Am. Surg. 2002;68:474–476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Siegrist RB Jr, Kane NM. Exploring the relationship between impatient hospital costs and quality of care. Am. J. Manag. Care. 2003;9 Spec No 1:SP43-9

    Google Scholar 

  51. Medical Quality Improvement Community. Surgical Infection Prevention National. 1999. Available at: http://www.medqic.org/content/nationalpriorities/topics/projectdes.jsp?topicID=461. Accessed August 4, 2004

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Surgical Outcomes and Quality, Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA , 10833 Le Conte Avenue CHS Room 72-215 Los Angeles, California 90095

    Clifford Y. Ko MS, MSHS, M.D., Melinda Maggard M.D., MSHS & Michelle Agustin M.P.H.

  2. West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California

    Clifford Y. Ko MS, MSHS, M.D.

Authors
  1. Clifford Y. Ko MS, MSHS, M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melinda Maggard M.D., MSHS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle Agustin M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clifford Y. Ko MS, MSHS, M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ko, C.Y., Maggard, M. & Agustin, M. Quality in Surgery: Current Issues for the Future. World J. Surg. 29, 1204–1209 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7990-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7990-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation