Towards National Surgical Surveillance in the UK – A Pilot Study

Abstract

ObjectiveThe Bristol heart inquiry in the United Kingdom (UK) highlighted the lack of standards for evaluating surgical performance and quality. In 2009, the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposed six standardised metrics for surgical surveillance. This is the first study to collect and analyse such metrics from a cohort of National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, helping to determine their feasibility and utility in measuring surgical performance, its impact on public health and mortality, and for tracking surgical trends over time.MethodsFreedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) requests for WHO standardised surgical metrics were made to 36 NHS Trusts in England during July to November 2010. Additional data on Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio (HSMR), Patient Safety Score and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) volume and mortality was obtained from Dr Foster Health and The Guardian Newspaper. Analysis was performed using mixed-effect logistic regression.Results30/36 trusts responded (83%). During 2005–9, 5.4 million operations were performed with a 24.2% increase in annual number of operations. This rising volume within hospitals was associated with lower mortality ratios. A 10% increase in operative volume was associated with a lower day of surgery death rate (DDR OR = 0.94, p = 0.056) and post-operative inpatient 30-day mortality (PDR30 OR = 0.93, p = 0.001). For every 10,000 more operations that an NHS Trust does, a 4% drop in PDR30 mortality was achieved. A 10% increase in the volume of elective AAAs was associated with lower elective AAA (OR = 0.96, p = 0.032) and emergency AAA (OR = 0.95, p = 0.009) PDR30 mortality. Lower DDR mortality was noted for emergency AAA mortality (OR = 0.95, p = 0.025) but not elective AAAs (OR = 0.97, p = 0.116).ConclusionStandarised surgical metrics can provide policy makers and commissioners with valuable summary data on surgical performance allowing for statistical process control of a complex intervention. This study has shown their collection is feasible albeit using FOI and the first to show a statistically significant volume-outcome relationship for surgery as a whole within hospitals. It adds weight to the argument that patients are safer in larger hospitals or those that become larger by growing their patient base. Together with other measures, such metrics can help build a picture of surgical surveillance in the UK and potentially lead us to safer surgery.

The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review

“…Previously, obtaining such information apart from official reports and documents was challenging. One of the included articles attempted to obtain data by a simple letter, and achieved a response rate of 11%; this improved to 83% after making the FOI Act request 19. A similar act passed in the USA in 1966 led to a vast public health and medical research output 25.…”

“…One of the included articles attempted to obtain data by a simple letter, and achieved a response rate of 11%; this improved to 83% after making the FOI Act request. 19 A similar act passed in the USA in 1966 led to a vast public health and medical research output. 25 The FOI Act in the UK now enables researchers to access a similarly large amounts of data pertaining to the entirety of the health service at minimal expense—both financially and with respect to time for researchers.…”

WHO Safer Surgery checklist compliance amongst paediatric emergency plastic surgery patients in an UK hospital

“…However, some studies have suggested that compliance in completing the checklist is minimal [8] , [9] . Monitoring the implementation and compliance with safety and quality assurance systems is an important aspect of clinical audit and surgical surveillance [10] . Data on WHO checklist compliance for a subset of our patients was lacking locally.…”