J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:95-96
© 2007 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
Discussion
| The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Dr Mark S. Allen
(Rochester, Minn). Dr Yang, Dr Sonett, members, and guests. I have no conflicts to disclose other than that I am a member of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database Committee, and therefore my encouragement to get you to join is hereby noted.
The authors are to be congratulated on an excellent presentation on a topic that is becoming increasingly important in the field of health care, and especially surgery. The push for quality improvement and the means to measure what good quality is has already become an important part of our daily practice and can only be expected to increase in importance in the future. Analyses such as these using data with risk adjustment are very important so that we can accurately assess the progress we are making in improving the quality of care we deliver to our patients. This analysis of more than 700 patients who underwent operations in two separate European hospitals is a good example of how we, the surgeons, should lead the effort so that it can be done in a scientific manner that is valid and meaningful.
I have several questions for the author. In your report you used a model to predict the number of complications. Because there is obviously a difference between someone with symptomatic postoperative atrial fibrillation that is easily controlled with medication versus someone with adult respiratory distress syndrome that requires prolonged ventilatory support and . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Related Article
-
Risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality models to compare the performance of two units after major lung resections
- Alessandro Brunelli, Nicholas J. Morgan-Hughes, Majed Refai, Michele Salati, Armando Sabbatini, and Gaetano Rocco
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2007 133: 88-96.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
Copyright © 2007 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.