Peer Review of Surgeons' Skills Carries 'Threatening Undertones'

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media , October 17, 2013

A study in which experienced surgeons submitted samples of their work for evaluation by an anonymous panel finds a large variation in technical skill. Now come questions about what is to be done with the information.

When experienced bariatric surgeons in Michigan were asked to select videos of their best gastric bypass operations and submit them for anonymous review so that their technical skills could be evaluated, judges found huge variations.

But most important, when their scores were linked with the state's risk-adjusted bariatric outcomes registry, patients of the most poorly rated surgeons' were twice as likely to die and have post-operative complications, than patients of surgeons with the best scores. And surgeons with the worst scores took 40% longer to complete their procedures than the best surgeons.

The study, published in the Oct. 10 New England Journal of Medicine, is loaded with implications. It suggests that hospitals, accreditation organizations and physicians have some deep soul searching ahead. Though it should be replicated by others, there is now a proven peer-review process to objectively critique the skill of surgeons who completed their training long ago.

Most important, and perhaps scary, is what doctors and hospitals do with the information they gain—however career limiting and economically devastating it may be—and whether patients have the right to know.

I asked the study's author, by John Birkmeyer, MD, director of the Michigan Surgical Collaborative for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, (M-SCORE) to discuss this fascinating and apparently first-of-its-kind study.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

2 comments on "Peer Review of Surgeons' Skills Carries 'Threatening Undertones'"

Rosemary Gibson (10/21/2013 at 7:53 AM)
Too bad that the title chosen for this article suggests the author and editors are concerned more about the surgeons than the patients. Patients want a competent surgeon. How is that threatening? Rosemary Gibson Senior Advisor, The Hastings Center

S.Noel,M.D. (10/18/2013 at 9:46 PM)
This study provides objective documentation of facts well known to those of us who have done agonizingly difficult surgical peer review for decades. Unfortunately, Medical Staff peer review bodies have little ability or authority to assist or force poor performers to improve their skills, if their outcomes are "acceptable", but not "optimal". Who is to define what is "acceptable"?




FREE e-Newsletters Join the Council Subscribe to HL magazine


100 Winners Circle Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027


About | Advertise | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Reprints/Permissions | Contact
© HealthLeaders Media 2016 a division of BLR All rights reserved.