We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.
Assessment of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performance in New York. Is there a bias against taking high-risk patients?
Medical Care 1997 January
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether performing coronary artery bypass surgery on high-risk patients adversely affects the risk-adjusted mortality rates for patients of surgeons and hospitals in New York State compared with the impact of performing surgery on more routine patients.
METHODS: Risk-adjusted mortality-rates were calculated for 31 hospitals and 87 surgeons for high-risk (a predicted mortality rate of at least 7.5%) and low-risk patients during the time period 1990 to 1992.
RESULTS: The risk-adjusted mortality for all high-risk patients was lower (2.94%) than the risk-adjusted mortality for other patients (3.02%). Fifteen of the 31 hospitals had a lower risk-adjusted mortality for all patients than they did for low-risk patients only, and no differences in either direction were statistically significant. Forty-one of 87 surgeons (47%) had risk-adjusted mortality for all patients that was at least as low as the risk-adjusted mortality for low-risk patients. In general, hospitals and surgeons with the lowest risk-adjusted mortality for all cases also had the lowest risk-adjusted mortality for high-risk cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that there is no systematic bias against operating on high-risk coronary artery bypass graft patients in the risk-adjusted performance system in New York.
METHODS: Risk-adjusted mortality-rates were calculated for 31 hospitals and 87 surgeons for high-risk (a predicted mortality rate of at least 7.5%) and low-risk patients during the time period 1990 to 1992.
RESULTS: The risk-adjusted mortality for all high-risk patients was lower (2.94%) than the risk-adjusted mortality for other patients (3.02%). Fifteen of the 31 hospitals had a lower risk-adjusted mortality for all patients than they did for low-risk patients only, and no differences in either direction were statistically significant. Forty-one of 87 surgeons (47%) had risk-adjusted mortality for all patients that was at least as low as the risk-adjusted mortality for low-risk patients. In general, hospitals and surgeons with the lowest risk-adjusted mortality for all cases also had the lowest risk-adjusted mortality for high-risk cases.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that there is no systematic bias against operating on high-risk coronary artery bypass graft patients in the risk-adjusted performance system in New York.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app