Key result
Traditional surgical M&M conferences significantly underreported mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%, p=0.001) and complications (6.4% vs 28.9%, p<0.0001) compared with ACS-NSQIP techniques.
Why the study?
Does ACS-NSQIP data collection identify more surgical complications and deaths compared to traditional M&M conference reporting in general surgery patients?
Population
General surgery patients evaluated between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2003
Comparison
Data collection using American College of… vs Traditional surgical morbidity and mortality…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
M&M conferences may substantially underreport events; leaves open whether NSQIP integration improves surgical quality assessment.
Observational (n=5,905)
No
Does ACS-NSQIP data collection identify more surgical complications and deaths compared to traditional M&M conference reporting in general surgery patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.9% vs 1.9%
p-value: p=0.001
Traditional surgical M&M conferences significantly underreport both mortality and complications compared to the standardized ACS-NSQIP data collection method.
Hutter et al. (2006) conducted an observational in General surgery (n=5,905). Traditional surgical morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference reporting vs. American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) techniques was evaluated on Mortality rate (p=0.001). Traditional surgical M&M conferences significantly underreported mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%, p=0.001) and complications (6.4% vs 28.9%, p<0.0001) compared with ACS-NSQIP techniques.