Objective: In the last few years, comparative outcome quality statistics have been one of the key topics for discussion in health care. Comparative audits using overall mortality and morbidity figures can be misleading as they do not take into account variations in urological procedure and patient fitness. The purpose of our study was to compare the crude operative morbidity and mortality rates with the predicted rates using an established scoring system (POSSUM). Materials and Methods: To examine these effects, we compared 5 urological operations (transurethral resection of the prostate, transurethral resection of the bladder, radical nephrectomy, suprapubic enucleation of the prostate and radical prostatovesiculectomy) performed by 2 urologists in a prospective study during a 12–month period. POSSUM consists of a simple preoperative physiological score, a postoperative score and defined kinds of complications. Results: One urologist operated on 160 patients, with an operative mortality of 2.5% and morbidity of 31.3%. The other urologist operated on 144 patients, with an operative mortality of 0.7% and morbidity of 9%. At first sight, there appear to be significant differences in operative outcome between the 2 urologists. However, analysis using the POSSUM system predicts a mortality rate of 3.1% for the first urologist and 0.7% for the second urologist (morbidity rates of 35% for the first urologist and 10.4% for the second urologist). Receiver operating curve analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 urologists. Conclusion: The present study demonstrates how misleading crude mortality and morbidity figures can be when comparing different urologists. By producing a single assessment of physiological status at the time of operation and of operative severity, POSSUM analysis allows a more realistic comparison between different urologists.

Keywords:
Audit, Operation, Mortality, Morbidity
1.
Fletcher D: Hospital ‘death leagues’ tables provoke outcry. Daily Telegraph Dec 17, 1992, p 8.
2.
Copeland GP, Sagar PM, Brennan J: Risk–adjusted analysis of surgeon performance: A 1 year study. Br J Surg 1995;82:408–411.
3.
Copeland GP, Jones D, Wilcox A, Harris PL: Comparative vascular audit using the POSSUM scoring system. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993;75:175–177.
4.
Sagar PM, Hartley MN, Mancey–Jones B, Sedman PC, May J, MacFie J: Comparative audit of colorectal resection with the POSSUM scoring system. Br J Surg 1984;81:1492–1494.
5.
Brunelli A, Fianchini A, Gesuita R, Carle F: POSSUM scoring system as an instrument of audit in lung resection surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;67:329–331.
6.
Cooperman M, Pflug B, Martin EW, Evans WE: Cardiovascular risk factors in patients with peripheral vascular disease. Surgery 1978;84:505–509.
7.
Greenburg AG, Saik RP, Pridham D: Influence of age on mortality of colon surgery. Am J Surg 1985;150:65–70.
8.
Linn BS: A protein energy malnutrition scale (PEMS). Ann Surg 1984;200:747–752.
9.
Goldman L, Caldera DL, Southwick FS, Nussbaum SR, Murray B, O’Malley TA, Goroll AH, Caplan CH, Nolan J, Burke DS, Krogstad D, Carabello B, Slater EE: Cardiac risk factors and complications in non–cardiac surgery. Medicine (Baltimore) 1978;57:357–370.
10.
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE: APACHE II: A severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13: 818–829.
11.
Ransay G, MacGregor JR, Murray GD, Neithercut D, Ledingham IM, George WD: Predicting the surgical risk in adults. Surg Res Commun 1988;3:95.
12.
Overall JE, Williams CM: Models for medical diagnosis. Behav Sci 1961;6:134–141.
13.
Goldman L, Caldera DL, Nussbaum SB: Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in non–cardiac surgical procedures. N Engl J Med 1977;297: 845–850.
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.