How many doctors does it take to manage an Elective General Surgical patient? Individualised Surgeon Specific Outcomes Data misrepresent modern team centred work practices

Hannah O'Neill, George Ramsay (Corresponding Author), Christina Downham, Magnus Johnston, Katy Emslie, Michael Wilson, Manoj Kumar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: The recent adoption of publishing surgeon-specific mortality data in some settings has prompted concerns that the complex team working environment is misrepresented. This has led to consideration that outcomes data would be more accurately conveyed if team-based outcomes were published. However, there has been little investigation into what constitutes a clinical team within the surgical setting and if team size increases when providing person-centered care to more complex patients. Here, we seek to address these questions in elective colorectal surgery.
Methods: This is a multi-centre retrospective case cohort study. Data were obtained from 3 Scottish sites. All elective colorectal resection procedures within a 2-month period were included. A standardised proforma was used to establish the number of professionals involved in patient care, diagnosis, management and outcome. Data were obtained from referral to discharge from cancer resection.
Results: Thirty-eight cases were included. Median age was 69.5, with 63.2% being male. The number of patients with underlying co-morbidities was 15. The mean number of doctors involved in care was 19 (range 26-87). Complications were associated with a larger in-hospital medical team (p <0.001) but there were no differences in team size by co-morbidity status.
Conclusion: Our study would suggest that publication of outcomes based upon one named clinician is an oversimplification of modern, person-centered management. The publication of team-based outcomes may both be more transparent with regard to clinical pathways and in turn support individual clinicians. Such reporting may enhance transparency while protecting individuals in an increasing culture of blame.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages5
JournalEuropean Journal for Person Centered Healthcare
Volume7
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 30 Sep 2019
EventASGBI 2018 International Surgical Congress - Liverpool, United Kingdom
Duration: 9 May 201811 May 2018

Fingerprint

Publications
Patient Care Management
Morbidity
Colorectal Surgery
Critical Pathways
Cohort Studies
Referral and Consultation
Mortality
Neoplasms
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Clinical outcomes
  • clinical pathways
  • comorbidity
  • complex patients
  • complex team working environment
  • elective general surgery
  • individualised surgeon-specific outcome data
  • person-centered healthcare
  • team-based outcomes
  • team-centered work practices

Cite this

@article{e67ba8fd5d5341a1a9a8c02ba783a00d,
title = "How many doctors does it take to manage an Elective General Surgical patient? Individualised Surgeon Specific Outcomes Data misrepresent modern team centred work practices",
abstract = "Introduction: The recent adoption of publishing surgeon-specific mortality data in some settings has prompted concerns that the complex team working environment is misrepresented. This has led to consideration that outcomes data would be more accurately conveyed if team-based outcomes were published. However, there has been little investigation into what constitutes a clinical team within the surgical setting and if team size increases when providing person-centered care to more complex patients. Here, we seek to address these questions in elective colorectal surgery.Methods: This is a multi-centre retrospective case cohort study. Data were obtained from 3 Scottish sites. All elective colorectal resection procedures within a 2-month period were included. A standardised proforma was used to establish the number of professionals involved in patient care, diagnosis, management and outcome. Data were obtained from referral to discharge from cancer resection.Results: Thirty-eight cases were included. Median age was 69.5, with 63.2{\%} being male. The number of patients with underlying co-morbidities was 15. The mean number of doctors involved in care was 19 (range 26-87). Complications were associated with a larger in-hospital medical team (p <0.001) but there were no differences in team size by co-morbidity status.Conclusion: Our study would suggest that publication of outcomes based upon one named clinician is an oversimplification of modern, person-centered management. The publication of team-based outcomes may both be more transparent with regard to clinical pathways and in turn support individual clinicians. Such reporting may enhance transparency while protecting individuals in an increasing culture of blame.",
keywords = "Clinical outcomes, clinical pathways, comorbidity, complex patients, complex team working environment, elective general surgery, individualised surgeon-specific outcome data, person-centered healthcare, team-based outcomes, team-centered work practices",
author = "Hannah O'Neill and George Ramsay and Christina Downham and Magnus Johnston and Katy Emslie and Michael Wilson and Manoj Kumar",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "30",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
journal = "European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare",
issn = "2052-5656",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How many doctors does it take to manage an Elective General Surgical patient? Individualised Surgeon Specific Outcomes Data misrepresent modern team centred work practices

AU - O'Neill, Hannah

AU - Ramsay, George

AU - Downham, Christina

AU - Johnston, Magnus

AU - Emslie, Katy

AU - Wilson, Michael

AU - Kumar, Manoj

PY - 2019/9/30

Y1 - 2019/9/30

N2 - Introduction: The recent adoption of publishing surgeon-specific mortality data in some settings has prompted concerns that the complex team working environment is misrepresented. This has led to consideration that outcomes data would be more accurately conveyed if team-based outcomes were published. However, there has been little investigation into what constitutes a clinical team within the surgical setting and if team size increases when providing person-centered care to more complex patients. Here, we seek to address these questions in elective colorectal surgery.Methods: This is a multi-centre retrospective case cohort study. Data were obtained from 3 Scottish sites. All elective colorectal resection procedures within a 2-month period were included. A standardised proforma was used to establish the number of professionals involved in patient care, diagnosis, management and outcome. Data were obtained from referral to discharge from cancer resection.Results: Thirty-eight cases were included. Median age was 69.5, with 63.2% being male. The number of patients with underlying co-morbidities was 15. The mean number of doctors involved in care was 19 (range 26-87). Complications were associated with a larger in-hospital medical team (p <0.001) but there were no differences in team size by co-morbidity status.Conclusion: Our study would suggest that publication of outcomes based upon one named clinician is an oversimplification of modern, person-centered management. The publication of team-based outcomes may both be more transparent with regard to clinical pathways and in turn support individual clinicians. Such reporting may enhance transparency while protecting individuals in an increasing culture of blame.

AB - Introduction: The recent adoption of publishing surgeon-specific mortality data in some settings has prompted concerns that the complex team working environment is misrepresented. This has led to consideration that outcomes data would be more accurately conveyed if team-based outcomes were published. However, there has been little investigation into what constitutes a clinical team within the surgical setting and if team size increases when providing person-centered care to more complex patients. Here, we seek to address these questions in elective colorectal surgery.Methods: This is a multi-centre retrospective case cohort study. Data were obtained from 3 Scottish sites. All elective colorectal resection procedures within a 2-month period were included. A standardised proforma was used to establish the number of professionals involved in patient care, diagnosis, management and outcome. Data were obtained from referral to discharge from cancer resection.Results: Thirty-eight cases were included. Median age was 69.5, with 63.2% being male. The number of patients with underlying co-morbidities was 15. The mean number of doctors involved in care was 19 (range 26-87). Complications were associated with a larger in-hospital medical team (p <0.001) but there were no differences in team size by co-morbidity status.Conclusion: Our study would suggest that publication of outcomes based upon one named clinician is an oversimplification of modern, person-centered management. The publication of team-based outcomes may both be more transparent with regard to clinical pathways and in turn support individual clinicians. Such reporting may enhance transparency while protecting individuals in an increasing culture of blame.

KW - Clinical outcomes

KW - clinical pathways

KW - comorbidity

KW - complex patients

KW - complex team working environment

KW - elective general surgery

KW - individualised surgeon-specific outcome data

KW - person-centered healthcare

KW - team-based outcomes

KW - team-centered work practices

M3 - Article

VL - 7

JO - European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare

JF - European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare

SN - 2052-5656

IS - 2

ER -