PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8323212

Comparative vascular audit using the POSSUM scoring system.

G P Copeland·D Jones·A Wilcox·P L Harris
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Comparative audit using overall mortality and morbidity figures can be misleading as they do not take into account variations in surgical procedure and patient fitness. To examine these effects we have compared vascular surgery in two differing hospitals, during a similar 9-month period, using the POSSUM scoring system. In one unit, 255 patients underwent vascular surgery with an operative mortality of 9.4%, and morbidity of 37.3%. In the other unit, 89 patients underwent vascular procedures with an operative mortality of 20.2% and morbidity of 47.2%. At first sight there appear to be significant differences in operative outcome between the two units. However, analysis using the POSSUM system predicts a mortality rate of 10.2% for unit A and 20.2% for unit B (morbidity rates of 38.4% for unit A and 50.6% for unit B). Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the two units (see Table III). POSSUM analysis may be of use in comparative audit.

Explore related subjects

EnglandHospitals, TeachingHumansMedical AuditMorbiditySeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeVascular Surgical ProceduresComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G P Copeland, D Jones, A Wilcox, P L Harris. 1993. Comparative vascular audit using the POSSUM scoring system.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8323212/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy.

Both the UK's Labour Government and Scotland's devolved Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive have committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. Furthermore, both institutions have emphasised the importance of using evidence to inform policy responses. In light of such political commitments, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of health inequalities in order to: (i) review the available research evidence; (ii) assess the extent to which policies have been based on this research evidence; and (iii) evaluate the success (or failure) of policies to tackle health inequalities. Yet so far only limited attention has been given to exploring how key actors involved in research-policy dialogues understand the processes involved. In an attempt to address this gap, this article draws on data from semi-structured interviews with 58 key actors in the field of health inequalities research and policymaking in the UK to argue that it is ideas, rather than research evidence, which have travelled from research into policy. The descriptions of the varying journeys of these ideas fit three types--successful, partial and fractured--each of which is outlined with reference to one example. The paper then employs existing theories about research-policy relations and the movement of ideas in an attempt to illuminate and better understand the contrasting journeys. In the concluding discussion, it is argued that the third approach, which focuses on the entrepreneurial processes involved in the marketing of ideas, is most helpful in understanding the research findings, but that this needs to be discussed in relation to the political context within which negotiations take place.

England↗