Outcome measurement in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by using a prospective complication registry: Results of an audit

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 144-151

  Veen, Eelco J ^a   Bik, Marianne ^a   Janssen Heijnen, Maryska L G ^b   De Jongh, Maryska ^a   Roukema, Anne J ^a  

^a TweeSteden Hospital   (Netherlands)

^b Eindhoven   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Complication registry; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Outcome measurement; Quality of care

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BILE DUCT INJURY; BILE LEAKAGE; BLADDER INJURY; CASE MIX; CHILD; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CHOLELITHIASIS; COMMON BILE DUCT STONE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DISEASE REGISTRY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; ILEUS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL ERROR; MORBIDITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERITONITIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RISK FACTOR; SEROMA; SPLEEN INJURY; STOMACH INJURY; SURGICAL INFECTION; SURGICAL MORTALITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHILD; CHOLECYSTECTOMY, LAPAROSCOPIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REGISTRIES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 41149151326     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: 14643677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm073     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. New Eng J Med 1991; 324:1073-8.
2. Müller BP, Holzinger F Leepin H et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Quality of care and benchmarking, Results of a single institution specialized in laparoscopy compared with those of a nationwide study in Switzerland. Surg Endosc 2003;17:300-5.
3. Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I et al. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Results of an Italian national survey on 56591 cholecystectomies. Arch Surg 2005;140:986-92.
4. Rauws LAJ, Gouma DJ. Endoscopic and surgical management of bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2004;18:829-46.
5. Giger UF, Michel JM, Opitz I et al. Risk Factors for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: analysis of 22953 consecutives cases from the swiss association of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery database. J Am Goll Surg 2006;203:723-8.
6. Ishizaki Y, Miwa K, Yoshimoto J et al. Conversion of elective laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy between 1993 and 2004. Br J of Surg 2006;93:987-91.
7. Hobbs MS, Mai Q, Knuiman MW et al. Surgeon experience and trends in intraoperative complications in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J of Surg 2006;93:844-53.
8. Keus F, de Jong JAF Gooszen HG et al. Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis (Review). Cochrane Datalase Syst Rep 2006 Art. No.: CD006231. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CDO06231.
9. Keus F, de Jong JAF, Gooszen HG et al. Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, Art. No.; CD006229. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006229.
10. Choudhry NK, Wright JG, Singer PA. Outcome rates for individual surgeons: Concerns about accuracy, completeness, and consequences of disclosure. Surgery 1994;115:406-8.
11. Russell EM, Bruce J, Krukowski ZH. Systematic review of the quality of surgical mortality monitoring. Br J of Surg 2003;90:.527-32.
12. Martin RCG, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 2002;235:803-13.
13. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ. Measuring the quality of surgical care: Structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 2004;198 626-32.
14. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2001;13475-80.
15. Veen EJ, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Leenen LPH et al. The registration of complications in surgery: A learning curve. World J Surg 2005;29:402-9.
16. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 1941;2:281-4.
17. Veen EJ, Steenbruggen J, Roukema JA. Classifying surgical complications; a critical appraisal. Arch of Surg 2005;140:1-6.
18. American College of Surgeons committee on Trauma. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patients. 1999, Chicago, United States, http://www.facs.org/trauma/amend99.html.
19. Strasberg SM, Callery MP, Soper NJ. Laparoscopic surgery of the bile ducts. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1996;6:81-105.
20. Smith RL, Bohl JK, McElearney ST et al. Wound infection after elective colorectal resection. Ann Surg 2004;239:599-607.
21. Arts DGT, de Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ. Defining and improvibg data: quality in medical registries: A literature review, case study, and genetic framework. J am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9:600-11.
22. Gouma DJ. Conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. Br J of Surg2006;93:905-06.
23. Ros A, Carlsson P, Rahmqvist M et al. Non-randomised patients in a cholecystectomy trial: Characteristics, procedures, and outcomes. BMC Surg 2006;17:1-5.
24. Aitken RJ, Nixon SJ, Ruckley CV. Lothian surgical audit: A 15 year experience of improvement in surgical practice through regional computerised audit. Lancet 1997;350:800-4.
25. Ireson CL, Schwartz RW. Measuring outcomes in surgical patients. Am J Surg 2001;181:76-80.
26. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK et al. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: From. concept to measurement. Ann Surg 2004;239:475-82.