Outcomes assessment and minimally invasive surgery
- 40 Downloads
Outcomes assessment is being used increasingly to shape practice patterns in all areas of medicine. Although outcomes assessment is not a new concept, the widespread application of outcomes measurement for modifying practice is novel. Instead of focusing on results of interventions in highly controlled environments, outcomes studies usually report results as they occur in uncontrolled, real-world environments. Recently, the Society, of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has initiated a society-wide initiative to monitor outcomes in patients undergoing various laparoscopic operations.
Pertinent literature is reviewed as it relates to outcomes assessment. The historical background underpinning the modern interest in outcomes is outlined. Definitions of terms useful for understanding outcomes research are given. The impact of outcomes assessment on minimally invasive surgery, both positive and negative, are examined. The SAGES outcome initiative is introduced.
Although outcomes studies usually do not provide information on the causes of observations made, they have gained in popularity because they provide information about patient perceptions of disease, disability, and treatment. Minimally invasive surgical procedures often are reported in terms of outcomes assessment because a controlled clinical trial was rendered impossible by early and widespread application of laparoscopic surgery. The SAGES outcomes initiative will provide the necessary tools for the participation of surgeons in the process of practice profiling.
Key wordsLaparoscopy Minimally invasive surgery Outcomes
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.Daley J, Forbes MG (1997) Validating risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: site visit assessment of process and structure. JACS 185: 341–351Google Scholar
- 14.Health Service Research Group (1992) Quality of care: 1. What is quality and how can it be measured? Can Med Assoc J 146: 2153–2158Google Scholar
- 15.Health Service Research Group (1992) Outcomes and the management of health care. Can Med Assoc J 147: 1775–1780Google Scholar
- 17.Khuri SF, Daley J (1997) Risk adjustment of the postoperative mortality rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study. JACS 185: 315–327Google Scholar
- 25.O’Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM, Morton JR, Maloney CT, Nugent WC, Gernandez Jr F, Clough R, Leavitt BJ, Coffin LH, Marrin CA, Wennberg D, Birkmeyer JD, Charlesworth DC, Malenka DJ, Quinton HB, Kasper JF (1996) A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. JAMA 275: 841–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Soper NJ, Barteau JA, Clayman RV, Ashley SW, Dunnegan KD (1992) Comparison of early postoperative results for laparoscopic versus standard open cholecystectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstst 174: 114–118Google Scholar
- 36.Wexner SD, Cohen SM (1995) Port-site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy. Br J Surg 21: 568–570Google Scholar