Traditional surgical M&M conferences significantly underreported mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%, p=0.001) and complications (6.4% vs 28.9%, p<0.0001) compared with ACS-NSQIP techniques.
Observational (n=5,905)
No
Does ACS-NSQIP data collection identify more surgical complications and deaths compared to traditional M&M conference reporting in general surgery patients?
Traditional surgical M&M conferences significantly underreport both mortality and complications compared to the standardized ACS-NSQIP data collection method.
Absolute Event Rate: 0.9% vs 1.9%
p-value: p=0.001
BACKGROUND: Despite advances by surgeons in assessing quality and safety, the traditional surgical morbidity and mortality (M 24% sample), were 0.9% versus 1.9%, respectively (p=0.001). Complication rates reported in M&M were 6.4% versus 28.9% ACS-NSQIP (p<0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed that mortality rates, as reported in conference, were substantially lower for both in-hospital and postdischarge patients, when compared with ACS-NSQIP. All subclassifications of complications, as presented in conference, were also lower, compared with ACS-NSQIP. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional surgical M&M reporting considerably underreports both in-hospital and postdischarge complications and deaths as compared with ACS-NSQIP. Approximately one of two deaths and three of four complications were not reported in the M&M conference at our institution. A Web-based reporting system based on an ACS-NSQIP platform was created to automate, facilitate, and standardize data on surgical morbidity and mortality.
Hutter et al. (2006) conducted an observational in General surgery (n=5,905). Traditional surgical morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference reporting vs. American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) techniques was evaluated on Mortality rate (p=0.001). Traditional surgical M&M conferences significantly underreported mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%, p=0.001) and complications (6.4% vs 28.9%, p<0.0001) compared with ACS-NSQIP techniques.