Three surgeons named with high death rates

[LordRaven]

Thank you but I understand statistical analysis very well... however there is an obvious qualitative dimension to this particular scenario which cannot be but appears to have been ignored. Also, as I said previously, a league table is misleading as someone will inevitably appear at the bottom of it.

Whilst these particular surgeons are identified as statistical "outliers", I draw no firm conclusions, given that details of the reasons for post-op morbidity are not given. It is not even clear whether the deaths are in any way related to the surgeries performed or of they are a result of the sort of post-operative complications which can arise from any significant yet routine surgical procedure.

Yes, someone will be bottom of the league.

However, if there are only a few percentage points separating top and bottom this can be viewed as acceptable.

Now look again at the report, and notice that a few surgeons are obviously badly under-performing compared to others. Should they be allowed to carry on with impunity ? And, given the great unwashed's propensity to resorting to Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Run - what happens after one of them fouls up again having been given the green light by the NHS to continue operating despite knowing their poor record ?

Sorry, but the public SHOULD know. How would you feel if your nearest and dearest died under the knife of a known incompetent ?

And if re-training and strict supervision doesn't bring them up to standard these few should be given the Spanish Archer.

It is not clearly indicated whether the deaths are attributable to surgical incompetence or poor post operative management or whether these patients were so sick or more than averagely susceptible to post-op complications than others. Surgery is not an exact science and the surgeon is not the only person involved in the care of any patient, so unless the deaths are found to be directly and irrevocably attributable to some error or omission on the part of the surgeon, the findings are meaningless. That is why qualitative analysis of the causes of the deaths is imperative.

Surgeons, as with all doctors are subject to yearly appraisal and revalidation every 5 years, which helps to ascertain if there are grounds for concern with individual performance. Also most hospitals analyse their own morbidity and mortality figures in order to establish where potential problems lie.

You're wasting your time, one can't educate pork Dimples and I am afraid Canny's mindset is controlled by the marxist leninist state control of everything brainwashing he has endured, including league tables for surgeons and he is actually too thick to even begin to comprehend the ramifications of this ridiculous policy.

It beggars belief! Patients with chronic disorders and at a high risk of succumbing under surgery will now be instrumental in blotting the copy book of many a fine surgeon who merely tries his/her best to save their lives??

You couldn't make it up! And only the braindead--who'd probably blame a surgeon for their condition--can see merit in this ridiculous policy.

Have league tables, fine. But let the NHS police the bloody things for common sense to prevail.

I suppose Canny and other morons will be sat applauding when the media commence condemnation stories with family statements about how some Surgeon killed their family member and how they are commencing litgation? The fact the patient was going to die anyway and surgery was last resort wont come into it.

Fannydc and his leftwing friends moan about lack of money for NHS but now want to set it up as an even Bigger Target for the Compo Culture pervasive in this country today??? Is he mad??

NHS pays out record £1.2bn claims

The NHS has paid out a record £1 billion in litigation claims in one year, it has emerged.

A surge in the number of claims made by NHS patients or their families led to the health service paying out £1.2 billion for its clinical negligence compensation bill between 2011 and 2012.

The payouts, which represent legal costs and compensation payouts, is a huge rise on the previous year when the bill was £863 million, the NHS Litigation Authority's (NHS LA) annual accounts show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... -7906079.h

QED "Cannydc and his kind will inadvertently destroy the NHS simply through being thick!

The party you voted for really have ruined the NHS. Scum

BLAIR COMMENCED PRIVATISATION THROUGH OUTSOURCING!

GET IT RIGHT

[Dimples]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

[Guest]

Yes, someone will be bottom of the league.

However, if there are only a few percentage points separating top and bottom this can be viewed as acceptable.

Now look again at the report, and notice that a few surgeons are obviously badly under-performing compared to others. Should they be allowed to carry on with impunity ? And, given the great unwashed's propensity to resorting to Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Run - what happens after one of them fouls up again having been given the green light by the NHS to continue operating despite knowing their poor record ?

Sorry, but the public SHOULD know. How would you feel if your nearest and dearest died under the knife of a known incompetent ?

And if re-training and strict supervision doesn't bring them up to standard these few should be given the Spanish Archer.

It is not clearly indicated whether the deaths are attributable to surgical incompetence or poor post operative management or whether these patients were so sick or more than averagely susceptible to post-op complications than others. Surgery is not an exact science and the surgeon is not the only person involved in the care of any patient, so unless the deaths are found to be directly and irrevocably attributable to some error or omission on the part of the surgeon, the findings are meaningless. That is why qualitative analysis of the causes of the deaths is imperative.

Surgeons, as with all doctors are subject to yearly appraisal and revalidation every 5 years, which helps to ascertain if there are grounds for concern with individual performance. Also most hospitals analyse their own morbidity and mortality figures in order to establish where potential problems lie.

You're wasting your time, one can't educate pork Dimples and I am afraid Canny's mindset is controlled by the marxist leninist state control of everything brainwashing he has endured, including league tables for surgeons and he is actually too thick to even begin to comprehend the ramifications of this ridiculous policy.

It beggars belief! Patients with chronic disorders and at a high risk of succumbing under surgery will now be instrumental in blotting the copy book of many a fine surgeon who merely tries his/her best to save their lives??

You couldn't make it up! And only the braindead--who'd probably blame a surgeon for their condition--can see merit in this ridiculous policy.

Have league tables, fine. But let the NHS police the bloody things for common sense to prevail.

I suppose Canny and other morons will be sat applauding when the media commence condemnation stories with family statements about how some Surgeon killed their family member and how they are commencing litgation? The fact the patient was going to die anyway and surgery was last resort wont come into it.

Fannydc and his leftwing friends moan about lack of money for NHS but now want to set it up as an even Bigger Target for the Compo Culture pervasive in this country today??? Is he mad??

NHS pays out record £1.2bn claims

The NHS has paid out a record £1 billion in litigation claims in one year, it has emerged.

A surge in the number of claims made by NHS patients or their families led to the health service paying out £1.2 billion for its clinical negligence compensation bill between 2011 and 2012.

The payouts, which represent legal costs and compensation payouts, is a huge rise on the previous year when the bill was £863 million, the NHS Litigation Authority's (NHS LA) annual accounts show.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... -7906079.h

QED "Cannydc and his kind will inadvertently destroy the NHS simply through being thick!

The party you voted for really have ruined the NHS. Scum

BLAIR COMMENCED PRIVATISATION THROUGH OUTSOURCING!

GET IT RIGHT

Outsourcing in the NHS started in 1984 with Mental Health Services as part of the MH Act (1984)

[LordRaven]

your a complete tory moron ravenWrong!!! I wrote to Dave and told him he'd lost me after handing a train building contract to the germans
so you think the public should be kept in the darkNo! I think the NHS is well capable of policing itself with its own league tables
about the internal goings on of the nhsI am all for transparency but I am not for surgeons to have their heads called for by lay people and the media because someone on death's door anyway happens to pass away on the table during surgery
typical tory cover up merchantYou really are being foolish now
transparancy is a good thingI agree but with the compo culture of today do you really want people to bankrupt the NHS through compo claims when they see "the surgeon responsible at the bottom of a league table was the one who operated and/or killed a relative? Have you actually thought this through?
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good goingYes so why the fuck do you want it not left to NHS to police themselves??
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrestedNo that is bullshit!!! Shadow Fiddled Records Were found on his PC
why shouldnt the public have this informationHave you been in a coma when the NHS was sued by idiots for ridiculous matters infinging their human rights?? Why do you want to open the Floodgates on litigation and bankrupt the NHS??
secrets are never a good thing They are not a secret if the NHS hierarchy are Policing them are they??? Fuck me sideways!!! Do you not trust the medical profession post-Shipman?

You really are not thinking this through

[LordRaven]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

I truly despair

[Big Fat Frosty]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

comparison of the value of collecting data
and that data being public knowledge
you seem to think we shouldnt have this info or an opinion on it

[Big Fat Frosty]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

I am truly desperate

fixed that for you moron....

[Dimples]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

comparison of the value of collecting data
and that data being public knowledge
you seem to think we shouldnt have this info or an opinion on it

Don't put words in my mouth.

There is nothing in the data which indicates that the surgeons themselves were responsible for these deaths. The only thing which can be ascertained is that these patients died at some stage following surgery carried out by these individual surgeons.

So, for example, if amongst the post-operative deaths included in the data for Surgeon X, two of the patients suffered say... a pulmonary embolism (a clot in the lung) which is a known risk for patients undergoing major surgery but not something for which the surgeon can be held responsible as it is not due to his error or lack of skill, why do you feel that Surgeon X should be held to be culpable?

Secondly, I can tell you is that these sorts of flawed data collection exercises will be more likely to impact upon the willingness of surgeons to operate on high-risk patients. One of the surgeons identified in that piece was a colo-rectal surgeon, who will operate on a significant number of patients who have cancer. There is a risk that by criticising those surgeons with higher mortality rates who are likely to deal with cancer patients, that some may opt to avoid operating on anyone who does not appear to have the very highest chances of survival and recovery.

That will mean that patients with cancer are more likely to be turned down for surgery. I don't see what benefit there is in that for anyone

[LordRaven]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

I am truly desperate

fixed that for you moron....

You are a joker Frosty


I hope you have seen the light because I fear a brain drain of doctors and a huge litigation bill for the NHS when the compo culture plebs opt to use a league table of surgeons to mount spurious claims that will ruin many a good surgeon's reputation and bankrupt the poor old NHS.

I thought you were all for the NHS but here you are supporting a stupid fucking idea that will increase NHS litigation bill and that is daft!

Overall, the number of claims the NHS is facing this year is expected to rise by a fifth to around 12,000.
More than £22billion - equivalent to about a fifth of the health service's annual budget - has been set aside to pay compensation to thousands of people harmed by poor care.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/1 ... ashed.html

[Big Fat Frosty]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

comparison of the value of collecting data
and that data being public knowledge
you seem to think we shouldnt have this info or an opinion on it

Don't put words in my mouth.

There is nothing in the data which indicates that the surgeons themselves were responsible for these deaths. The only thing which can be ascertained is that these patients died at some stage following surgery carried out by these individual surgeons.

So, for example, if amongst the post-operative deaths included in the data for Surgeon X, two of the patients suffered say... a pulmonary embolism (a clot in the lung) which is a known risk for patients undergoing major surgery but not something for which the surgeon can be held responsible as it is not due to his error or lack of skill, why do you feel that Surgeon X should be held to be culpable?

Secondly, I can tell you is that these sorts of flawed data collection exercises will be more likely to impact upon the willingness of surgeons to operate on high-risk patients. One of the surgeons identified in that piece was a colo-rectal surgeon, who will operate on a significant number of patients who have cancer. There is a risk that by criticising those surgeons with higher mortality rates who are likely to deal with cancer patients, that some may opt to avoid operating on anyone who does not appear to have the very highest chances of survival and recovery.

That will mean that patients with cancer are more likely to be turned down for surgery. I don't see what benefit there is in that for anyone

the data only pinpoints the possible problems it is then upto someone else to investigate and see
if its surgical error or complications or nursing error or whatever
if one ass cancer doc has more bad outcomes than another ass cancer doctor
why is it wrong to look at that and find out why
could be fuck all to do with the surgeons
in the long run
but still needs looking at

[LordRaven]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

comparison of the value of collecting data
and that data being public knowledge
you seem to think we shouldnt have this info or an opinion on it

Don't put words in my mouth.

There is nothing in the data which indicates that the surgeons themselves were responsible for these deaths. The only thing which can be ascertained is that these patients died at some stage following surgery carried out by these individual surgeons.

So, for example, if amongst the post-operative deaths included in the data for Surgeon X, two of the patients suffered say... a pulmonary embolism (a clot in the lung) which is a known risk for patients undergoing major surgery but not something for which the surgeon can be held responsible as it is not due to his error or lack of skill, why do you feel that Surgeon X should be held to be culpable?

Secondly, I can tell you is that these sorts of flawed data collection exercises will be more likely to impact upon the willingness of surgeons to operate on high-risk patients. One of the surgeons identified in that piece was a colo-rectal surgeon, who will operate on a significant number of patients who have cancer. There is a risk that by criticising those surgeons with higher mortality rates who are likely to deal with cancer patients, that some may opt to avoid operating on anyone who does not appear to have the very highest chances of survival and recovery.

That will mean that patients with cancer are more likely to be turned down for surgery. I don't see what benefit there is in that for anyone

the data only pinpoints the possible problems it is then upto someone else to investigate and see
if its surgical error or complications or nursing error or whatever
if one ass cancer doc has more bad outcomes than another ass cancer doctor
why is it wrong to look at that and find out why
could be fuck all to do with the surgeons
in the long run
but still needs looking at

How would you feel if we did not have an NHS free for all who use its services?
Think about that, what life would be like? When you'd have to pay for care?
Wouldn't you be grateful if you were then handed free medical care?

And therein lies the problem with you and the rest of those who believe firmly in the "Entitlement Culture"
More and more demanding
More and more cost

And you now want to hang those who want to try and cure you?
Proud to be British?
Am I fuck with people like you thinking everything in life should be handed to us on a plate.

Hence the Client State mentality championed by The Shower Of Shit
They want you to be wholly dependent on them
That way they get your vote(s)

Fuck that!
I want some responsibility
And not be a slave to a political party

[Big Fat Frosty]

the problem isnt the collecting of usefull data
its when fools use it for there own political ends...

[Dimples]

your a complete tory moron raven
so you think the public should be kept in the dark
about the internal goings on of the nhs
typical tory cover up merchant
transparancy is a good thing
3 outta 5000 is pretty damn good going
its this kinda data collation that led to harold shipman being arrested
why shouldnt the public have this information
secrets are never a good thing

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

comparison of the value of collecting data
and that data being public knowledge
you seem to think we shouldnt have this info or an opinion on it

Don't put words in my mouth.

There is nothing in the data which indicates that the surgeons themselves were responsible for these deaths. The only thing which can be ascertained is that these patients died at some stage following surgery carried out by these individual surgeons.

So, for example, if amongst the post-operative deaths included in the data for Surgeon X, two of the patients suffered say... a pulmonary embolism (a clot in the lung) which is a known risk for patients undergoing major surgery but not something for which the surgeon can be held responsible as it is not due to his error or lack of skill, why do you feel that Surgeon X should be held to be culpable?

Secondly, I can tell you is that these sorts of flawed data collection exercises will be more likely to impact upon the willingness of surgeons to operate on high-risk patients. One of the surgeons identified in that piece was a colo-rectal surgeon, who will operate on a significant number of patients who have cancer. There is a risk that by criticising those surgeons with higher mortality rates who are likely to deal with cancer patients, that some may opt to avoid operating on anyone who does not appear to have the very highest chances of survival and recovery.

That will mean that patients with cancer are more likely to be turned down for surgery. I don't see what benefit there is in that for anyone

the data only pinpoints the possible problems it is then upto someone else to investigate and see
if its surgical error or complications or nursing error or whatever
if one ass cancer doc has more bad outcomes than another ass cancer doctor
why is it wrong to look at that and find out why
could be fuck all to do with the surgeons
in the long run
but still needs looking at

... and do you really imagine that morbidity and mortality rates are not audited within hospitals? Do you imagine that higher than expected mortality rates are not already investigated?

This data is meaningless as it does not take into account all the potential factors which result in the resultant statistics.

[LordRaven]

You are surely not trying to draw a comparison between a serial killer whose patients were murdered at his own hands and 3 surgeons working in high-risk surgical specialities, who have outlier status in a league table of dubious veracity?

There is no "secret" here. Nor is there any evidence put forward which indicates that these deaths were directly attributable to the actions of these surgeons.

comparison of the value of collecting data
and that data being public knowledge
you seem to think we shouldnt have this info or an opinion on it

Don't put words in my mouth.

There is nothing in the data which indicates that the surgeons themselves were responsible for these deaths. The only thing which can be ascertained is that these patients died at some stage following surgery carried out by these individual surgeons.

So, for example, if amongst the post-operative deaths included in the data for Surgeon X, two of the patients suffered say... a pulmonary embolism (a clot in the lung) which is a known risk for patients undergoing major surgery but not something for which the surgeon can be held responsible as it is not due to his error or lack of skill, why do you feel that Surgeon X should be held to be culpable?

Secondly, I can tell you is that these sorts of flawed data collection exercises will be more likely to impact upon the willingness of surgeons to operate on high-risk patients. One of the surgeons identified in that piece was a colo-rectal surgeon, who will operate on a significant number of patients who have cancer. There is a risk that by criticising those surgeons with higher mortality rates who are likely to deal with cancer patients, that some may opt to avoid operating on anyone who does not appear to have the very highest chances of survival and recovery.

That will mean that patients with cancer are more likely to be turned down for surgery. I don't see what benefit there is in that for anyone

the data only pinpoints the possible problems it is then upto someone else to investigate and see
if its surgical error or complications or nursing error or whatever
if one ass cancer doc has more bad outcomes than another ass cancer doctor
why is it wrong to look at that and find out why
could be fuck all to do with the surgeons
in the long run
but still needs looking at

... and do you really imagine that morbidity and mortality rates are not audited within hospitals? Do you imagine that higher than expected mortality rates are not already investigated?

This data is meaningless as it does not take into account all the potential factors which result in the resultant statistics.

Dimples this is what the entitlement culture does to this country and explains why people like the Poles laugh at us for expecting the state to provide everything.
People think they are entitled to anything and everything
And with the poor old NHS facing £Billions in litigation these self same people want to add to the burden
And then they'll all moan when NHS has to be cut because of lack of funds
Absolutely ridiculous!
A surgeon tries to save people's lives on the table but with the seriously chronically ill all he/she can do is try their best.
They are like mechanics who'll sometimes tell you there is no point--surgeons do not have that option, they will try anyway
And then be damned for trying by the likes of BFF
The Data takes no account of each individual case and that is why it flawed
But try and tell that to the members of "the entilement culture" and you'll be met with pig ignorance
All they want is what's best for them and the poor old surgeons can go to hell

[Big Fat Frosty]

the sheer hypocrisy of maggie loving raven acting like hes the defender of the nhs
ffs.....