You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Surgeon-related variance: how much longer for its recognition?
  1. L Peter Fielding1,
  2. Roger Grace2,
  3. Rosemary Hittinger3
  1. 1Department of Surgery, York Hospital, York, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2Springfield Lodge, Oaken, Wolverhampton, UK
  3. 3Group Director of Clinical Performance & Governance, HCA International, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor L Peter Fielding, Department of Surgery, York Hospital, 1001 S. George Street, York, PA 17405, USA; lpfielding{at}wellspan.org

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301791

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with interest the paper by Morris et al, which looked at 30-day postoperative mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in England.1 In 1978, using the data from the large bowel cancer (LBC) project2 we made the case for looking at ‘surgeon’ as a highly significant variable in the context of randomised control trials. Each surgeon was given a random number independent of their institution to protect their confidentiality The results in the LBC project showed a wide variance in 30-day mortality between 0% and 5% up to 21% and for clinical anastomotic leak, the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.