Biomedical subjects

Mike Harley

Publications and source records attributed to Mike Harley.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Was Rodney Ledward a statistical outlier? Retrospective analysis using routine hospital data to identify gynaecologists' performance.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether routinely collected data from hospital episode statistics could be used to identify the gynaecologist Rodney Ledward, who was suspended in 1966 and was the subject of the Ritchie inquiry into quality and practice within the NHS. DESIGN: A mixed scanning approach was used to identify seven variables from hospital episode statistics that were likely to be associated with potentially poor performance. A blinded multivariate analysis was undertaken to determine the distance (known as the Mahalanobis distance) in the seven indicator multidimensional space that each consultant was from the average consultant in each year. The change in Mahalanobis distance over time was also investigated by using a mixed effects model. SETTING: NHS hospital trusts in two English regions, in the five years from 1991-2 to 1995-6. Population Gynaecology consultants (n = 143) and their hospital episode statistics data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Whether Ledward was a statistical outlier at the 95% level. RESULTS: The proportion of consultants who were outliers in any one year (at the 95% significance level) ranged from 9% to 20%. Ledward appeared as an outlier in three of the five years. Our mixed effects (multi-year) model identified nine high outlier consultants, including Ledward. CONCLUSION: It was possible to identify Ledward as an outlier by using hospital episode statistics data. Although our method found other outlier consultants, we strongly caution that these outliers should not be overinterpreted as indicative of "poor" performance. Instead, a scientific search for a credible explanation should be undertaken, but this was outside the remit of our study. The set of indicators used means that cancer specialists, for example, are likely to have high values for several indicators, and the approach needs to be refined to deal with case mix variation. Even after allowing for that, the interpretation of outlier status is still as yet unclear. Further prospective evaluation of our method is warranted, but our overall approach may be potentially useful in other settings, especially where performance entails several indicator variables.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2005

Do English NHS waiting time targets distort treatment priorities in orthopaedic surgery?

OBJECTIVES: To assess and quantify the impact of guarantees on maximum waiting times on clinical decisions to admit patients from waiting lists for orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: Before and after comparative study, analysing changes in waiting times distributions between 1997/8 and 2001/2 for waiting list and booked inpatients and day cases admitted for elective treatments in trauma and orthopaedics in English hospitals. RESULTS: The 2001/2 maximum waiting time target of 15 months did change the pattern of admissions for trauma and orthopaedic elective inpatients, with a net increase in admissions in that year, compared with 1997/8 (and over and above the 30,259 (7.6%) overall increase in all admissions) of patients who had waited around 15 months, of 9333. There was little indication that these additional admissions displaced shorter wait patients. In absolute and proportional terms, admissions increased for all waiting time categories except very short waiter-- one to two weeks (an absolute fall of 2901 and a relative fall of 6591), and those waiting 40--41 weeks. The latter fall was only 111 patients in absolute terms (or 577 relative to the expected increase), however. The former much larger reduction may be an indication of clinical distortions, but it is unclear why very short wait (presumably more urgent) patients should disproportionately suffer compared with longer wait (presumably less urgent) cases. In addition, there was little indication that more minor cases usurped more major cases: 57% of the increase consisted of knee and hip replacement procedures, for example. CONCLUSIONS: While the 2001/2 waiting times target demonstrably changed admission patterns (and was a major contribution to the reduction in long waits), the extent to which this represented significant and clinically relevant distortions is questionable given the lack of widely accepted admission criteria. However, as targets become progressively tougher, there is a need to monitor consultants' concerns more closely.

England↗

PubMed2004

Counting in-hospital deaths in England: a comparison of hospital computer systems and mortuary registers.

OBJECTIVES: In-hospital death counts derived from hospital computer systems have been used in England by an independent company, 'Dr Foster', to rank the quality of care of hospitals, but the validity of the underlying data remains unclear. This study compares counts of in-hospital deaths using two different sources - the hospital computer system and the mortuary register - to determine: whether the counts of in-hospital deaths from these two sources differed; qualitative explanations for possible sources of discrepancy; the direction and magnitude of any differences; and the possible impact of any differences on the Dr Foster rankings. METHODS: The four highest and the four lowest National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in the West Midlands, as ranked by Dr Foster, participated. Each hospital was asked to compare the monthly counts of in-hospital deaths from the hospital computer system and the hospital mortuary register for the fiscal year 1999/2000. RESULTS: One hospital, with a computerised mortuary register, had identical counts of in-hospital deaths. Two hospitals reported 4-5% more deaths and four hospitals reported fewer deaths (0.4-7%) from their hospital computer system than from their mortuary register. These differences were not large enough to change their Dr Foster rankings. Wide discrepancies were noted on a monthly basis (range: -13.9% to +15.9%). DISCUSSION: The differences between the two sources of in-hospital death counts were not large enough to influence the Dr Foster ranks but were sufficient to raise concern about the validity and completeness of mortality data in the NHS.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2003

Waiting times. Catch up, keep up.

Trusts vary greatly on their progress in achieving waiting-list targets, particularly for 2005. A study of trusts with a range of performances identified four key criteria: information use, managerial focus, capacity and long-term efficiency. Actions that help a trust 'catch up' rarely help them 'keep up; strategies may need to change once waiting lists have fallen markedly. Flexibility, forward planning and 'expecting the unexpected' are characteristics of successful trusts.

Efficiency, Organizational↗