Disclosure of individual surgeon's performance rates during informed consent: Ethical and epistemological considerations

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 245, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 507-513

  Burger, Ingrid ^a   Schill, Kathryn ^a   Goodman, Steven ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DECISION MAKING; EPISTEMOLOGY; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DECISION MAKING; DISCLOSURE; ETHICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; SURGERY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34147100056     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000242713.82125.d1     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am Econ Rev. 1963;53:941-973.
2. Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, et al. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA. 2000;283:1866-1874.
3. Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA. 2005;293:1239-1244.
4. Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr, O'Donnell JF, et al. Adult open heart surgery in New York State: an analysis of risk factors and hospital mortality rates. JAMA. 1990;264:2768-2774.
5. Ferguson TB Jr, Dziuban SW Jr, Edwards FH, et al. The STS National Database: current changes and challenges for the new millennium. Committee to Establish a National Database in Cardiothoracic Surgery, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:680-691.
6. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. 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: National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg. 1998;228:491-507.
7. Keogh B, Spiegelhalter D, Bailey A, et al. The legacy of Bristol: public disclosure of individual surgeons' results. BMJ. 2004;329:450-454.
8. Panageas KS, Schrag D, Riedel E, et al. The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:658-665.
9. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2117-2127.
10. Hannan EL, Siu AL, Kumar D, et al. The decline in coronary artery bypass graft surgery mortality in New York State: the role of surgeon volume. JAMA. 1995;273:209-213.
11. Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital. Court of Appeals of New York, 1914.
12. Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees. 1957;P 2d 170.
13. Canterburry v. Spence. Vol. 464 F2d 772: District of Columbia Circuit, 1972.
14. John P. Ludington, Annotation: Medical Malpractice Liability Based on Misrepresentation of the Nature and Hazards of Treatment. 1985;Vol. 42 ALR 4th 543.
15. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
16. Johnson v. Kokemoor. Vol. 545 NW2d 495: Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1996.
17. Duttry v. Patterson. Vol. 741 A2d 199: Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1999.
18. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. 2000.
19. Clarke S, Oakley J. Informed consent and surgeons' performance. J Med Philos. 2004;29:11-35.
20. Huang IC, Dominici F, Frangakis C, et al. Is risk-adjustor selection more important than statistical approach for provider profiling? Asthma as an example. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:20-34.
21. Hannan EL, Siu AL, Kumar D, et al. Assessment of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performance in New York: Is there a bias against taking high-risk patients? Med Care. 1997;35:49-56.
22. Chassin MR, Hannan EL, DeBuono BA. Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:394-398.
23. Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. JAMA. 1998;279:1638-1642.
24. Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care: a survey of cardiovascular specialists. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:251-256.
25. Austin PC. A comparison of Bayesian methods for profiling hospital performance. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:163-172.
26. Austin PC, Naylor CD, Tu JV. A comparison of a Bayesian vs. a frequentist method for profiling hospital performance. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7:35-45.
27. Hannan EL, Kumar D, Racz M, et al. New York State's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System: four years later. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58:1852-1857.
28. Hibbard JH, Jewett JJ. Will quality report cards help consumers? Health Aff (Millwood). 1997;16:218-228.
29. Shahian DM, Normand SL, Torchiana DF, et al. Cardiac surgery report cards: comprehensive review and statistical critique. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:2155-2168.
30. Shahian DM, Yip W, Westcott G, et al. Selection of a cardiac surgery provider in the managed care era. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120:978-987.
31. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Birkmeyer JD. How do elderly patients decide where to go for major surgery? Telephone interview survey. BMJ. 2005;331:821.
32. Berlinger N, Wu AW. Subtracting insult from injury: addressing cultural expectations in the disclosure of medical error. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:106-108.
33. Werner RM, Asch DA, Polsky D. Racial profiling: the unintended consequences of coronary artery bypass graft report cards. Circulation. 2005;111:1257-1263.
34. Goodman SN. Probability at the bedside: the knowing of chances or the chances of knowing? Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:604-606.