The intermediate equivalent value outpatient procedure scoring system to maximise the workload of local anaesthetic

A unique approach to quantifying the changing workload and case mix in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

“…Jones & Collins [6] suggested the IEV as a marker for the operative workload. This scoring system is far from flawless; for example, a panproctocolectomy scores the same as an anterior resection or an total rectal excision (abdominoperineal resection; CMO‐C, score of 4.2), but this system is based on the BUPA schedule of procedures, which is freely available and has been widely adopted in the private healthcare sector in the UK for several years [6,18]. Although its origin is unclear, the BUPA scale was developed to reflect the time and skill entailed in each operative procedure and has been updated and modified from time to time.…”

A tool-kit for the quantitative assessment of proficiency in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

“…In the context of laparoscopic colorectal surgery, stoma formation and bypass procedures are scored as Major procedures, segmental colectomies as M+ and multisegmental resections and rectal excisions as CMO‐C procedures. This system is freely available and has been widely adopted in the private healthcare sector in the UK for several years and is routinely used for remuneration purposes [13]. We have therefore decided to use this system rather than inventing new definitions for the complexity of cases [12].…”

“…The IEV scoring system, which was originally postulated as a marker for the operative workload [8], defined a standard primary inguinal hernia repair as an intermediate operation and scored it at 1 point. All other operative procedures were then scored compared with this procedure and classified as Minor (0. system is freely available and has been widely adopted in the private healthcare sector in the UK for several years and is routinely used for remuneration purposes [13]. We have therefore decided to use this system rather than inventing new definitions for the complexity of cases [12].…”