Individual Surgeon Performance Research Articles

A Method for Continuous Surgeon Improvement in Rectal Cancer: Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Sum.

To develop and analyze a risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) chart as a potential method to monitor individual surgeon performance in robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Currently, surgeons lack real-time tools to monitor and enhance their performance beyond residency completion. While national quality programs exist, granular, individual-level data is crucial for continuous improvement. Previous studies suggest CUSUM charts hold promise in identifying performance trends and outliers. This retrospective study analyzed data from 640 robotic TME cases performed by 12 surgeons at two institutions. RA-CUSUM charts were generated for three outcomes: complications, operative time, and length of stay. The overall RA-CUSUM curves for operative time and complications showed an initial learning phase followed by a plateau or downward slope, indicating proficiency or improvement. However, individual surgeon curves revealed significant heterogeneity. Three surgeons consistently excelled in operative time, while five minimized complications most effectively. Potential quality improvement could be implemented to drive performance toward positive outliers. No differences were found in unadjusted outcomes, including conversion, number of lymph nodes harvested, and positive circumferential margins. The RA-CUSUM chart is a promising method for identifying individual surgeon performance in robotic TME. It could help surgeons, teams, and leaders identify improvement areas and benchmark themselves against positive outliers. Further studies are needed to explore the potential of RA-CUSUM for implementing interventions to improve surgical quality.

Operating Room Supply Cost and Value of Care after Implementing a Sustainable Quality Intervention.

Variability in operating room supply cost is a modifiable cause of suboptimal resource use and low value of care (outcomes vs cost). This study describes implementation of a quality improvement intervention to decrease operating room supply costs. An automated electronic health record data pipeline harmonized operating room supply cost data with patient and case characteristics and outcomes. For inpatient procedures, predicted mortality and length of stay were used to calculate observed-to-expected ratios and value of care using validated equations. For commonly performed (1 or more per week) procedures, the pipeline generated figures illustrating individual surgeon performance vs peers, costs for each surgeon performing each case type, and control charts identifying out-of-control cases and surgeons with more than 90th percentile costs, which were shared with surgeons and division chiefs alongside guidance for modifying case-specific supply instructions to operating room nurses and technicians. Preintervention control (1,064 cases for 7 months) and postintervention (307 cases for 2 months) cohorts had similar baseline characteristics across all 16 commonly performed procedures. Median costs per case were lower in the intervention cohort ($811 [$525 to $1,367] vs controls: $1,080 [$603 to $1,574], p < 0.001), as was the incidence of out-of-control cases (19 (6.2%) vs 110 (10.3%), p = 0.03). Duration of surgery, length of stay, discharge disposition, and 30-day mortality and readmission rates were similar between cohorts. Value of care was higher in the intervention cohort (1.1 [0.1 to 1.5] vs 1.0 [0.2 to 1.4], p = 0.04). Pipeline runtime was 16:07. An automated, sustainable quality improvement intervention was associated with decreased operating room supply costs and increased value of care.

Survey of New Zealand Arthroplasty Surgeons on Surgeon-Level Outcome Reporting

BackgroundSurgeon-specific outcome monitoring has become increasingly prevalent over the last 3 decades. The New Zealand Orthopaedic Association monitors individual surgeon performance through 2 mechanisms: arthroplasty revision rates derived from the New Zealand Joint Registry and a practice visit program. Despite remaining confidential, surgeon-level outcome reporting remains contentious. The purpose of this survey was to evaluate the opinions of hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons in New Zealand on the perceived importance of outcome monitoring, current methods used to evaluate surgeon-specific outcomes, and potential improvements identified through literature review and discussion with other registries. MethodsThe survey consisted of 9 questions on surgeon-specific outcome reporting, using a five-point Likert scale, and 5 demographic questions. It was distributed to all current hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons. There were 151 hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons who completed the survey, a response rate of 50%. ResultsRespondents agreed that monitoring arthroplasty outcomes is important and that revision rates are an acceptable measure of performance. Reporting risk-adjusted revision rates and more recent timeframes were supported, as was including patient-reported outcomes when monitoring performance. Surgeons did not support public reporting of surgeon-level or hospital-level outcomes. ConclusionThe findings of this survey support the use of revision rates to confidentially monitor surgeon-level arthroplasty outcomes and suggest that concurrent use of patient-reported outcome measures would be acceptable.

Safe implementation of surgical innovation: a prospective registry of the Versius Robotic Surgical System

ObjectivesTo describe a new, international, prospective surgical registry developed to accompany the clinical implementation of the Versius Robotic Surgical System by accumulating real-world evidence of its safety and effectiveness.InterventionsThis robotic...

STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2021 Update on Outcomes, Quality, and Research

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database is the most mature and comprehensive cardiac surgery database. It has been the foundation for quality measurement and improvement activities in cardiac surgery, facilitated the generation of accurate risk adjusted performance benchmarks and serves as a platform for novel research. Recent enhancements have added to the database's functionality, ease of use, and value to multiple stakeholders. This report is the sixth in a series of annual reports that provide updated volumes, outcomes, database-related developments, quality improvement initiatives, and research summaries using the Adult Cardiac Surgery Database in the past year.

The Rhinoplasty Health Care Monitor: Using Validated Questionnaires and a Web-Based Outcome Dashboard to Evaluate Personal Surgical Performance.

Background: Self-assessment provides valuable feedback in the life-long process of mastering rhinoplasty. This study presents a method to measure and evaluate data-based performance of a single surgeon using a web-based dashboard. Methods: In this prospective analytic cohort study, all patients referred to the senior author for functional-aesthetic (revision) rhinoplasty between April 2014 and September 2020 are included. Patients completed the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale, Utrecht Questionnaire (UQ), and visual analog scales before and after rhinoplasty. Questionnaire scores were exported to a customized web-based dashboard: the rhinoplasty health care monitor. Supported by real-time graphic output, this monitor automatically analyzes functional and aesthetic outcomes. Results: Of 603 referred patients, 363 were eligible for rhinoplasty. Mean NOSE scale scores decreased from 66.6 ± 23.5 to 23.2 ± 24.0 (p < 0.001), and mean UQ scores decreased from 12.2 ± 6.3 to 7.1 ± 3.9 (p < 0.001) 1 year after surgery. The rhinoplasty health care monitor visualizes numerous outcome parameters that help the surgeon to analyze results, identify learning needs, and detect trends in performance development. Conclusions: This automated outcome dashboard transparently measures individual surgeon performance. Gauging performance provides means to enhance surgical development and, consequently, patient satisfaction.

Association of a Statewide Surgical Coaching Program With Clinical Outcomes and Surgeon Perceptions.

To assess risk-adjusted outcomes and participant perceptions following a statewide coaching program for bariatric surgeons. Coaching has emerged as a new approach for improving individual surgeon performance, but lacks evidence linking to clinical outcomes. This program took place between October 2015 and February 2018 in the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative. Surgeons were categorized as coach, participant, or nonparticipant for an interrupted time series analysis. Multilevel logistic regression models included patient characteristics, time trends, and number of sessions. Risk-adjusted overall and surgical complication rates are reported, as are within-group relative risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We also compared operative times and report risk differences and 95% confidence intervals. Iterative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews examined participant and coach perceptions of the program. The coaching program was viewed favorably by most surgeons and many participants described numerous technical and nontechnical practice changes. The program was not associated with significant change in risk-adjusted complications with relative risks for coaches, participants, and nonparticipants of 0.99 (0.62-1.37), 0.91 (0.64-1.17), and 1.15 (0.83-1.47), respectively. Operative times did improve for participants, but not coaches or nonparticipants, with risk differences of -14.0 (-22.3, -5.7), -1.0 (-4.5, 2.4), and -2.6 (-6.9, 1.7). Future coaching programmatic design should consider dose-complexity matching, hierarchical leveling, and optimizing video review. This statewide surgical coaching program was perceived as valuable and surgeons reported numerous practice changes. Operative times improved, but there was no significant improvement in risk-adjusted outcomes.

Transforming surgical morbidity and mortality into a systematic case review

Background/PurposeThe surgical morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences at a regional children's hospital achieved the goals of case by case peer review and education for trainees but provided limited data for trending and analysis. In 2019, an institution-wide effort was initiated to create an electronic case review system with the goals of improving event capture and real-time practice performance feedback. Surgical M&M was migrated to this structured case review format to provide a platform for surgical performance improvement. MethodsAn online secure database was created with a 3-step classification system based on Clavien-Dindo severity score, peer review, and causality fishbone analysis. The data entered were available in an interactive dashboard. Retrospective tabulation of the 2018 M&M data was performed using the archived paper system used prior to 2019. ResultsFor the calendar year of 2019, the division of pediatric surgery captured and categorized 193 complications in the case review system. The capture rate was 50 per 1000 surgical procedures. For a similar time frame in 2018, the capture rate was 35 per 1000 surgical procedures. The dashboard provided run charts of the incidence and types of complications by procedure and by surgeon. Similar trend data were not available in 2018. The dashboard output has made possible the creation of (non- risk adjusted) individual surgeon performance reports. The output has been used to direct process improvement projects and educational content. ConclusionCreation of an online database with interactive dashboard has allowed surgical M&M to evolve into a systematic case review that greatly facilitates quality improvement efforts. This system increased the event capture rate and provided novel practice performance feedback, resulting in process improvement projects and educational objectives predicated on the trending data. These electronic reporting tools are now available to all surgical divisions and represent a transformative approach to surgical case review. Type of StudyRetrospective Historical control; Quality improvement. Level of EvidenceLevel III.

Value of individual surgeon performance metrics as quality assurance measures in oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

BackgroundSurgeon‐level operative mortality is widely seen as a measure of quality after gastric and oesophageal resection. This study aimed to evaluate this alongside a compound‐level outcome analysis.MethodsConsecutive patients who underwent treatment including surgery delivered by a multidisciplinary team, which included seven specialist surgeons, were studied. The primary outcome was death within 30 days of surgery; secondary outcomes were anastomotic leak, Clavien–Dindo morbidity score, lymph node harvest, circumferential resection margin (CRM) status, disease‐free (DFS), and overall (OS) survival.ResultsThe median number of annual resections per surgeon was 10 (range 5–25), compared with 14 (5–25) for joint consultant teams (P = 0·855). The median annual surgeon‐level mortality rate was 0 (0–9) per cent versus an overall network annual operative mortality rate of 1·8 (0–3·7) per cent. Joint consultant team procedures were associated with fewer operative deaths (0·5 per cent versus 3·4 per cent at surgeon level; P = 0·027). The median surgeon anastomotic leak rate was 12·4 (range 9–20) per cent (P = 0·625 versus the whole surgical range), overall morbidity 46·5 (31–60) per cent (P = 0·066), lymph node harvest 16 (9–29) (P < 0·001), CRM positivity 32·0 (16–46) per cent (P = 0·003), 5‐year DFS rate 44·8 (29–60) per cent and OS rate 46·5 (35–53) per cent. No designated metrics were independently associated with DFS or OS in multivariable analysis.ConclusionAnnual surgeon‐level metrics demonstrated wide variations (fivefold), but these performance metrics were not associated with survival.

Correlation of Pre-Operative Co-Morbidity Indices with Peri-Operative and Post-Operative Metrics in Urological Patients Undergoing Major Open Procedures

Background:Individual surgeon and institutional performance are usually assessed by morbidity and mortality rates, which can be calculated using peri-operative metrics, such as POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of mortality and morbidity). Post-operative risk can be estimated using the surgical Apgar outcome score. However, pre-operative co-morbidity may contribute to case risk diversity and affect immediate peri-operative metrics and short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. We estimated the correlation between pre-operative co-morbidity or risk assessment indices and peri-operative metrics in urological patients. Material and Methods:The study included 100 consecutive patients (80.8% males, mean age ± SD 66.3 ± 10.7 years, range 30 - 88 years) undergoing major open urological procedures (39 nephrectomies, 43 radical prostatectomies, 18 radical cystectomies). Pre-operative co-morbidity was assessed using Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), age-adjusted CCI (AA-CCI), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), and Index of Co-Existent Diseases (ICED). Pre-operative risk was assessed with the American Society of Anesthesiologists index (ASA). Functional status was quantified based on estimation of the metabolic equivalent (MET). Peri-operative metrics included POSSUM and surgical Apgar scores. Results: All pre-operative indices significantly correlated with POSSUM, but none correlated with the surgical Apgar score. Conclusions:In patients undergoing major open urological procedures, risk stratification in the post-operative setting using the surgical Apgar score is independent of pre-operative co-morbidity status. In contrast, pre-operative co-morbidity and risk assessment correlated with peri-operative metrics used to calculate morbidity and mortality risk. Reports of death and complication rates do not take into account case diversity and, therefore, should be adjusted for co-morbidity status.

Leveraging the clinical collaborative model to drive value improvement.

Physician-led quality improvement collaboratives have emerged across surgical disciplines as a means to measure and subsequently improve the quality and cost of care. In this review, we will provide an overview of recent successes within quality improvement collaboratives, as well as discuss future opportunities for such initiatives. Successful quality improvement collaboratives have coupled data registries with a collegial environment to achieve data-driven improvements in care across diverse practice settings. Such efforts have a track record for accomplishing specific patient safety gains, and have more recently addressed complex care scenarios where data and consensus building have been leveraged to clarify optimal care pathways. Collaboratives are currently exploring mechanisms to meaningfully impact increasingly complex elements of care delivery, such as individual surgeon performance. Quality improvement collaboratives are in a unique position to understand patterns in care across populations, lead evidence-based assessments of variation in quality, and to attempt to intervene to improve outcomes based on the data they accumulate. As healthcare increasingly shifts to emphasize quality of care, physician-led collaboratives represent an important mechanism to drive improvement.

Creating Individual Surgeon Performance Assessments in a Statewide Hospital Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative

Surgeon performance profiling is of great interest to surgeons, hospitals, health plans, and the public, yet efforts to date have been contested, with stakeholders at odds over the selection, reliability, and validity of metrics used. We sought to create surgeon-level comparative assessments within the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative. American College of Surgeons NSQIP data were obtained for 51 Illinois hospitals covering a 30-month period from 2014 to 2016. Surgeon-level, risk-adjusted outcomes rates were estimated from 3-level crossed random effects logistic regression models and classified as low, as expected, or high for each of 7 postoperative outcomes. Model intra-class correlations and provider-specific reliability statistics were calculated. A total of 123,141 cases were analyzed for 2,724 surgeons. Median provider case volume was 17 (interquartile range 4 to 54). Overall crude complication rates ranged from 0.62% to 7.14% across the 7 outcomes investigated. Surgeon-level variance estimates were low (intra-class correlation coefficients between 0.007 and 0.074). No performance outliers were detected for 3 of the outcomes measures, while a small number of outliers were identified for any morbidity (11 surgeons), surgical site infection (10 surgeons), death or serious morbidity (8 surgeons), and reoperation (1 surgeon). Among all physicians, median reliability was below 0.1 for each outcome. Few individual surgeon performance outliers could be detected in NSQIP clinical registry data for a statewide hospital collaborative over a 30-month period using postoperative patient outcomes. Low surgeon-specific case volumes and minimal variance between surgeons may limit the utility of American College of Surgeons NSQIP outcomes measures for individual profiling. Alternative metrics, such as process measures, patient experience, composite measures, or technical skill assessments should be explored for surgeon-level measurement.

Predictors of 30-day readmissions after gastrectomy for malignancy

BackgroundThe objective of this study is to identify risk factors associated with readmission after gastrectomy to potentially identify potential areas for targeted improvements. Hospital readmission after surgery is a topic of interest in health-care policy among hospitals, payers, and providers. Readmissions are associated with increased costs, morbidity, and mortality. Readmission rates have been proposed as a quality metric for hospitals and quality indicator of individual surgeon's performance. In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has reduced payments to hospitals with excessive readmissions for certain diagnoses. Materials and methodsAll gastrectomy procedures for malignancy in patients aged ≥18 y from 2005 to 2011 were queried from the California State Inpatient Database. Patients who died during index admission were excluded. Descriptive statistics were examined between all baseline variables and readmission status. Logistic regression models were adjusted for age, race, sex, and insurance status. ResultsA total of 6985 patients underwent gastrectomy for malignancy; 16.5% of the patients were readmitted after postoperative discharge. Readmission rate did not change significantly over time. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the occurrence of any postoperative complications, postoperative length of stay greater than 10 d, discharge to skilled nursing facility or home health care, combined resection with distal pancreatectomy and/or splenectomy, and patient comorbidities like diabetes mellitus and renal failure were independently associated with readmissions. ConclusionsThe findings suggest that focusing on quality improvement efforts by targeting reduction of postoperative complications may reduce readmission rates.

Value Analysis in Acute Care Surgery: Evaluation of Individual Surgeon Performance for Emergent Cholecystectomy

Morse, Bryan C. MD, FACS; Jhunjhunwala, Rashi; Dente, Christopher J. MD, FACS; Dougherty, Stacy MD, FACS; Nicholas, Jeffrey M. MD, FACS; Gelbard, Rondi B. MD; Sweeney, John F. MD; Wyrzykowski, Amy D. MD, FACS Author Information

Surgeon, not technique, defines outcomes after central venous port insertion

BackgroundAlthough central venous access for port placement is common and relatively safe, complications and poor resource utilization occur. We hypothesized that despite the simplicity of port placement, surgeon and/or resident performance—rather than technique—is associated with clinical outcomes and operating room efficiency. Materials and methodsMedical records of 1200 patients who underwent port placement between 2012 and 2015 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Insertion route (subclavian, internal jugular, cephalic cutdown), individual surgeon (A-G), surgeon volume, body mass index, patient age, and resident presence were evaluated to determine their association with operating room time, complications, and need for alternate insertion route. ResultsOn univariate analysis, operating room times were significantly different among individual surgeons, with surgeons E and F having the longest operating room times (50 and 63 versus 31-40 min; P < 0.01) and switching to an alternate method more frequently (13.5% and 21.3%, versus 0%-10.3%, P < 0.01). On multivariate analyses, operating time was increased with elevated body mass index, resident presence, and switching to an alternate method. Individual surgeons had varied effects on operating time with two surgeons found to be the predominant drivers (OR 19 and 27; P < 0.01). With residents excluded, these two surgeons continued to increase operating times (OR 15 and 29; P < 0.01) and procedural complications (OR 3.2 and 5.9; P < 0.05). ConclusionsAlthough port placement is ostensibly simple, individual surgeon performance is the primary driver of patient outcome and operative efficiency. In an era requiring optimized resource utilization and outcomes, these data demonstrate potential for enhanced programmatic organization and case distribution.

Review of “Profiling Individual Surgeon Performance Using Information from a High-quality Clinical Registry

Review of “Profiling Individual Surgeon Performance Using Information from a High-quality Clinical Registry

Profiling Individual Surgeon Performance Using Information from a High-Quality Clinical Registry: Opportunities and Limitations

There is increasing interest in profiling the quality of individual medical providers. Valid assessment of individuals should highlight improvement opportunities, but must be considered in the context of limitations. High quality clinical data from the American College of Surgeons NSQIP, gathered in accordance with strict policies and specifications, was used to construct individual surgeon-level assessments. There were 39,976 cases evaluated, performed by 197 surgeons across 9 hospitals. Both 2-level (cases by surgeon) and 3-level (cases by surgeon by hospital) risk-adjusted, hierarchical regression analyses were performed. Outcomes were 30-day postoperative morbidity, surgical site infection, and mortality. Surgeon performance was compared in both absolute and relative terms. "Signal-to-noise" reliability was calculated for surgeons and models. Projected case requirements for reliability levels were generated. Surgeon performances could be distinguished to different degrees: morbidity distinguished best, mortality least. Outliers could be identified for morbidity and infection, but not mortality. Reliability was also highest for morbidity and lowest for mortality. Even models with high overall reliability did not assess all providers reliably. Incorporating institutional effects had predictable effects: penalizing providers at "good" institutions, benefiting providers at "poor" institutions. Individual surgeon profiles can, at times, be distinguished with moderate or good reliability, but to different degrees in different models. Absolute and relative comparisons are feasible. Incorporating institutional level effects in individual provider modeling presents an interesting policy dilemma, appearing to benefit providers at "poor-performing" institutions, but penalizing those at "high-performing" ones. No portrayal of individual medical provider quality should be accepted without consideration of modeling rationale and, critically, reliability.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Composite Measure of Individual Surgeon Performance for Adult Cardiac Surgery: A Report of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task Force

Previous composite performance measures of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) were estimated at the STS participant level, typically a hospital or group practice. The STS Quality Measurement Task Force has now developed a multiprocedural, multidimensional composite measure suitable for estimating the performance of individual surgeons. The development sample from the STS National Database included 621,489 isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, isolated aortic valve replacement, aortic valve replacement plus coronary artery bypass grafting, mitral, or mitral plus coronary artery bypass grafting procedures performed by 2,286 surgeons between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2014. Each surgeon's composite score combined their aggregate risk-adjusted mortality and major morbidity rates (each weighted inversely by their standard deviations) and reflected the proportion of case types they performed. Model parameters were estimated in a Bayesian framework. Composite star ratings were examined using 90%, 95%, or 98% Bayesian credible intervals. Measure reliability was estimated using various 3-year case thresholds. The final composite measure was defined as 0.81 × (1 minus risk-standardized mortality rate) + 0.19 × (1 minus risk-standardized complication rate). Risk-adjusted mortality (median, 2.3%; interquartile range, 1.7% to 3.0%), morbidity (median, 13.7%; interquartile range, 10.8% to 17.1%), and composite scores (median, 95.4%; interquartile range, 94.4% to 96.3%) varied substantially across surgeons. Using 98% Bayesian credible intervals, there were 207 1-star (lower performance) surgeons (9.1%), 1,701 2-star (as-expected performance) surgeons (74.4%), and 378 3-star (higher performance) surgeons (16.5%). With an eligibility threshold of 100 cases over 3 years, measure reliability was 0.81. The STS has developed a multiprocedural composite measure suitable for evaluating performance at the individual surgeon level.

Provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery.

A consumer model of health supports that people undergoing elective surgery should be informed about the past operative performance of their surgeon before making two important decisions: 1. to consent to the proposed surgery, and 2. to have a particular doctor perform the surgery. This information arguably helps empower patients to participate in their care. While surgeons' performance data are available in some settings, there continues to be controversy over the provision of such data to patients, and the question of whether consumers should, or want to, be provided with this information. To assess the effects of providing a surgeon's performance data to people considering elective surgery on patient-based and service utilisation outcomes. For the original review, we searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2009, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to 28 September 2009); EMBASE (Ovid) (1988 to 28 September 2009); PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to 28 September 2009); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to 20 October 2009); Current Contents (Ovid) (1992 to 23 November 2009); and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 20 October 2009).For this update, we searched: CENTRAL (2009 to 3 March 2014); MEDLINE (Ovid) (2009 to 3 March 2014); EMBASE (Ovid) (2009 to 3 March 2014); PsycINFO (Ovid) (2009 to 9 March 2014); CINAHL (EBSCO) (2009 to 9 March 2014), Current Contents (Web of Science) (November 2009 to 21 March 2014), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (2009 to 21 March 2014). We applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs and controlled before and after studies (CBAs), in which an individual surgeon's performance data were provided to people considering elective surgery. We considered the CBAs for inclusion from 2009 onwards. Two review authors (AH, SH) independently assessed all titles, abstracts, or both of retrieved citations. We identified no studies for inclusion. Consequently, we conducted no data collection or analysis. We found no studies that met the inclusion criteria; therefore, there are no results to report on the effect of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery. We found no studies reporting the impact of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery. This is an important finding in itself. While the public reporting of a surgeon's performance is not a new concept, the efficacy of this data for individual patients has not been empirically tested. A review of qualitative studies or new primary qualitative research may be useful to determine what interventions are currently in use and explore the attitudes of consumers and professionals towards such interventions.

The individual surgeon's performance: 10 years of laparoscopic colorectal surgery

The individual surgeon's performance: 10 years of laparoscopic colorectal surgery