Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 14, Issue 10, pp 883–890 | Cite as

Outcomes assessment and minimally invasive surgery

Historical perspective and future directions
  • S. B. Archer
  • M. M. Sims
  • R. Giklich
  • B. Traverso
  • B. Laycock
  • B. M. Wolfe
  • K. N. Apfelgren
  • R. J. Fitzgibbons
  • J. G. Hunter
Review Article

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Conclusions

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 words

Laparoscopy Minimally invasive surgery Outcomes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson C (1994) Measuring what work in health care. Science 263: 1080–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berwick DM (1989) Health services research and quality of care. Med Care 27: 763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryan-Brown C, Dracup K (1996) Outcomes, end points, and expectations. Am J Crit Care 5: 87–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caper P (1988) Defining quality in medical care. Health Aff (Millwood) Spring 49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuschieri A, Dubois F, Mouiel J, Mouret P, Becker H, Buess G, Trede M, Troidl H (1991) The European experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161: 385–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daley J, Forbes MG (1997) Validating risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: site visit assessment of process and structure. JACS 185: 341–351Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidoff AM, Pappas TN, Murray EA, Hilleren DJ, Johnson RD, Baker ME, Newman GE, Cotton PB, Meyers WC (1992) Mechanisms of major biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 215: 196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellwood PM (1988) A technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med 318: 1549–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268: 2420–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fletcher DR (1995) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Australia: outcomes and costs. Surg Endosc 9: 1230–1235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Kuebler RR (1978) The importance of beta, the type II error, and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. N Engl J Med 299: 690–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodman GR, Hunter JG (1991) Results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a university hospital. Am J Surg 162: 576–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM (1993) Changing physicians’ practices. N Engl J Med 329: 1271–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Health Service Research Group (1992) Outcomes and the management of health care. Can Med Assoc J 147: 1775–1780Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunter JG, Galloway K, Putterill M, Lyon C, VonRij A (1999) Clinical outcomes audit: validating a new surgical tool. Surg Endosc 13: 699–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Khuri SF, Daley J (1998) 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. Ann Surg 228: 491–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Legorreta AP, Silber JH, Costantino GN, Kobylinski RW, Zatz SL (1993) Increased cholecystectomy rate after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 270: 1429–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Longo D (1994) The impact of outcomes measurement, on the hospital-physician relationship. Top Health Care Financ 20: 63–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacFadyen BV (1995) Outcomes in medical care: What are they? Surg Endosc 9: 1213–1214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGreevy JM (1998) Groin hernia and surgical truth. Am J Surg 176: 301–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McSherry CK (1976) Quality assurance: the cost of utilization review and the educational value of medical audit in a university hospital. Surgery 80: 122–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Dietrich A, Lefering R (1991) Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg 78: 150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Peters JH, Ellison EC, Innes JT, Liss JL, Nichols KE, Lomano JM, Roby SR, Front ME, Carey LC (1991) Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 213: 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pitt HA (1995) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the Maryland experience. Surg Endosc 9: 1224–1225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reilly WT, Nelson H, Schroeder G, Wieand HS, Bolton J, O’Connell MJ (1996) Wound recurrence following conventional treatment of coloretal cancer: a rare but perhaps underestimated problem. Dis Colon Retum 39: 200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roper WL, Winkenwerder W, Hackbarth GM, Krakauer H (1988) Effectiveness in health care: an initiative to evaluate and improve medical practice. N Engl J Med 319: 1197–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 31.
    Soper NJ, Brunt LM, Kerbl K (1994) Laparoscopic general surgery. N Engl J Med 330: 409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ugarte F (1995) Laproscopic cholecystectomy port seeding from a colon carcinoma. Am Surg 61: 820–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Voyles CR (1995) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the Mississippi Experience. Surg Endosc 9: 1225–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wennberg JE (1987) The paradox of appropriate care. JAMA 258: 2568–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wennberg JE, Barry MJ (1994) Letter. Science 264: 758–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wexner SD, Cohen SM (1995) Port-site metastases after laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cure of malignancy. Br J Surg 21: 568–570Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. B. Archer
    • 1
  • M. M. Sims
    • 2
  • R. Giklich
    • 2
  • B. Traverso
    • 3
  • B. Laycock
    • 4
  • B. M. Wolfe
    • 5
  • K. N. Apfelgren
    • 6
  • R. J. Fitzgibbons
    • 7
  • J. G. Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Outcomes SciencesBoston
  3. 3.Virginia Mason Medical CenterSeattle
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryDartmouth Hitchcock Medical CenterLebanon
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryUC Davis Medical CenterSacramento
  6. 6.Michigan State Univ.Lansing
  7. 7.Creighton UniversityOmaha

Personalised recommendations