Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Variability in Surgical Practice. An Unresolved Problem
Journal Information
Vol. 95. Issue 2.
Pages 59-61 (February 2017)
Vol. 95. Issue 2.
Pages 59-61 (February 2017)
Editorial
DOI: 10.1016/j.cireng.2017.03.010
Full text access
Variability in Surgical Practice. An Unresolved Problem
Variabilidad en la práctica quirúrgica. Un problema por resolver
Visits
...
Miguel Pera@
Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Full Text

The issue of variability in surgery has been the object of debate for decades, especially following the publication of papers by Wennberg and Gittelsohn showing important differences in tonsillectomy and hysterectomy rates (between 8% and 70%) as well as dissimilarities among other procedures conducted in adjacent geographic areas of the states of Maine and Vermont.1 Although years have passed, the variability in surgical practice is still an unresolved problem. These variations occur not only in the rates of certain surgical interventions but throughout the entire healthcare process. In colorectal surgery, for example, there are currently very important variations in the percentages of use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer,2 minimally invasive surgery3 or mechanical bowel preparation.4 In addition, the differences in the care we provide our patients occur not only among different geographic areas and hospitals but also among surgeons within the same surgical service.

The participation of the patient in decision-making after considering the risks and benefits of the various therapeutic options may the cause of a certain variability, which has been defined as positive variability,5 but its influence on the variations of surgical practice is still minimum in our setting. On the other hand, what are responsible for variations that in most cases are inexplicable and unjustified include factors dependent on the population, structure, services offered and, especially, surgeon-related factors.5 This variability has a negative impact and is associated with problems in terms of effectiveness, less efficient use of resources, and problems of accessibility and equality. In short, the outcome is a loss of value in the care we provide our patients.6 In this context, important variations in the surgical practice consequently lead to important variations in the results. Hence, great variability has been observed in the rates of surgical site infection,7 readmissions8 and 30-day mortality,9 among other outcome indicators, following colorectal cancer surgery.

Variability in surgical practice may be due to the uncertain value of different therapeutic options, as occurs with the surgical treatment of hemorrhoids, in keeping with the example of colorectal surgery.10 Sometimes, even though there is sufficient evidence on the best form of treatment, the lack of knowledge limits its application; such is the case of fast-track protocols for perioperative care.11 Finally, lack of training or technical skills may also explain variations in surgical results among hospitals and among surgeons. Although the influence of surgeons on variability has been researched much less, several studies have demonstrated significant differences in the percentages of anastomotic dehiscence, definitive stomata and tumor recurrence after colorectal cancer surgery among surgeons of the same service.12,13

Different strategies have been proposed to reduce unwarranted variability in surgical practice and its negative consequences.5 First, the creation, dissemination and application of clinical practice guidelines and protocols, which is compatible with the necessary participation of patients in decision making. Secondly, it is necessary to measure, analyze and publish the results and related variations. The Atlas of Variations in Medical Practice is a good example.14 The positive effect of audits and results research has been extensively demonstrated. The national program for the implementation of total mesorectal excision, developed in Norway in the 1990s15 and which served as a model for our later Viking Project,16 is an example of how the creation of a national registry with its corresponding audits, together with standardized surgical technique, is able to decrease variability and improve outcomes in the treatment of rectal cancer. In a more recent study, we have evaluated the results over time of a cohort of hospitals participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program of the American College of Surgeons.17 The participation of the hospitals is voluntary and their results are audited periodically. It has been observed that hospitals that commit to staying in the program for at least 3 years improve their surgical results and present progressive reductions in mortality, morbidity and infection of the surgical site.

This evaluation of surgical practice and its results should be conducted not only in the hospital as a whole, but also individually. Recently, initial experiences have been published with the use of surgeon-specific outcome reports, which provide for individualized evaluation and corresponding feedback.18,19 Although they have some limitations, these reports, when adjusted for patient risk and confidential in nature, provide surgeons with benchmarking information on different quality indicators that can be used to improve individual outcomes and also reduce variability.20

It has been suggested that surgeons, when merely observed, improve their results. This concept is known as the Hawthorne effect, the name of the Chicago electric company where this phenomenon was first described during experiments conducted by sociologists.21 However, many believe that the evaluation of results is not sufficient to stimulate improvement and that additional strategies are needed, such as the communication of best practices and positive deviance, which will likewise reduce variability.22 The main idea of a positive deviance approach is that solutions to the problems faced by a group often originate within that group, and that certain members have knowledge and skills that can be generalized to improve the performance of the rest. In other words, there are individuals whose practices produce better results than those of their peers, and the implementation of these practices should be promoted through group discussion.

In conclusion, although the variability in surgery related to patients’ preferences and their participation in decision making should be considered good, in most cases these variations in the care process are not justified and may reflect inappropriate practices. The application of strategies aimed at reducing such variability will not only improve efficiency and equality, but also the value of the care we provide our patients.

References
[1]
J. Wennberg, A. Gittelsohn.
Small area variations in health care delivery; a population-based health information system can guide planning and regulatory decision-making.
Science, 182 (1973), pp. 1102-1106
[2]
K.M. Augestad, R.O. Lindsetmo, J. Stulberg, H. Reynolds, A. Senagore, B. Champagne, International Rectal Cancer Study Group (IRCSG), et al.
International preoperative rectal cancer management: staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and impact of multidisciplinary teams.
World J Surg, 34 (2010), pp. 2689-2700
[3]
H. Yeo, J. Niland, D. Milne, A. ter Veer, T. Bekaii-Saab, J.M. Farma, et al.
Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.
J Natl Cancer Inst, 107 (2015), pp. 1-8
[4]
M. Alcántara-Moral, X. Serra-Aracil, M.J. Gil-Egea, M. Frasson, B. Flor-Lorente, E. Garcia-Granero, E.B.S.Q.-C. on behalf of the collaborative Group of Coloproctology Section of The Spanish Association of Surgeons.
Observational cross-sectional study of compliance with the fast track protocol in elective surgery for colon cancer in Spain.
Int J Colorectal Dis, 29 (2014), pp. 477-483
[5]
J. Appleby, V. Raleigh, F. Frosini, G. Bevan, H. Gao, T. Lyscom.
Variations in health care. The good, the bad and the inexplicable.
The King's Fund, 614 (2011), pp. 8
ISBN: 978 1 85717
[6]
M. Gray.
Value based healthcare.
BMJ, 356 (2017), pp. j437
[7]
Vigilancia de las Infecciones nosocomiales en los hospitales de Cataluña (VINCAT). Available from: http://vincat.gencat.cat/ca/
[8]
D.J. Lucas, A. Ejaz, D.A. Bischof, E.B. Schneider, T.M. Pawlik.
Variation in readmission by hospital after colorectal cancer surgery.
JAMA Surg, 149 (2014), pp. 1272-1277
[9]
M. Schootman, M. Lian, S.L. Pruitt, A.D. Deshpande, S. Hendren, M. Mutch, et al.
Hospital and geographic variability in thirty-day all-cause mortality following colorectal cancer surgery.
Health Serv Res, 49 (2014), pp. 1145-1164
[10]
D. Yeo, K.Y. Tan.
Hemorrhoidectomy – making sense of surgical options.
World J Gastroenterol, 20 (2014), pp. 16976-16983
[11]
D.S. Keller, C.P. Delaney, A.J. Senagore, L.S. Feldman.
SAGES SMART Task Force. Uptake of enhanced recovery practices by SAGES members: a survey.
[12]
J. Luján, Q. Hernández, G. Valero, M. de las Heras, J. Gil, D. Frutos, et al.
Influence of the surgeon as a factor in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer with preoperative radiochemotherapy. A comparative study.
Cir Esp, 79 (2006), pp. 89-94
[13]
F.G. Marinello, G. Baguena, E. Lucas, M. Frasson, D. Hervás, B. Flor-Lorente, et al.
Anastomotic leaks after colon cancer resections: does the individual surgeon matter?.
Colorectal Dis, 18 (2016), pp. 562-569
[14]
Atlas de Variaciones en la Práctica Médica (VPM). Available from: http://www.atlasvpm.org/atlas-cirugia-general
[15]
A. Wibe, M.T. Eriksen, A. Syse, H.E. Myrvold, O. Søreide, Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group.
Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer – what can be achieved by a national audit?.
Colorectal Dis, 5 (2003), pp. 471-477
[16]
H. Ortiz, A. Wibe, M.A. Ciga, J. Lujan, A. Codina, S. Biondo.
Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. Impact of a multidisciplinary team training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Spain.
Colorectal Dis, 15 (2013), pp. 544-551
[17]
M.E. Cohen, Y. Liu, C.Y. Ko, B.L. Hall.
Improved surgical outcomes for ACS NSQIP hospitals over time: evaluation of hospital cohorts with up to 8 years of participation.
Ann Surg, 263 (2016), pp. 267-273
[18]
S.G. Yi, N.P. Wray, S.L. Jones, B.L. Bass, J. Nishioka, S. Brann, et al.
Surgeon-specific performance reports in general surgery: an observational study of initial implementation and adoption.
J Am Coll Surg, 217 (2013), pp. 636-647
[19]
M.D. Hatfield, C.M. Ashton, B.L. Bass, B.A. Shirkey.
Surgeon-specific reports in general surgery: establishing benchmarks for peer comparison within a single hospital.
J Am Coll Surg, 222 (2016), pp. 113-121
[20]
M. Pera.
The surgeon as a risk factor: the need for shared individual outcome reports and quality improvement strategies.
Colorectal Dis, 18 (2016), pp. 533-534
[21]
T.R. Lied, V.A. Kazandjian.
A Hawthorne strategy: implications for performance measurement and improvement.
Clin Perform Qual Health Care, 6 (1998), pp. 201-204
[22]
E.H. Bradley, L.A. Cury, S. Ramanadhan, L. Rowe, I.M. Nembhard, H.M. Krumholz.
Research in action: using positive deviance to improve quality of health care.
Implement Sci, 4 (2009), pp. 1-11

Please cite this article as: Pera M. Variabilidad en la práctica quirúrgica. Un problema por resolver. Cir Esp. 2017;95:59–61.

@m_pera_roman.

Copyright © 2017. AEC
Article options
Tools
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

es en pt
Política de cookies Cookies policy Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.