Three surgeons named with high death rates

[Dimples]

There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.

This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.

[Trapper John]

There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.

This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.

Hang on a minute, there is data to suggest that surgeons are killing people and not doing their job properly, that's enough for the MOB to bay for their blood, get them struck off, make sure they never work in their privileged position again - that seems very reasonable to me.

[LordRaven]

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

I'll take that as your capitulation to reason.

Well I think that it is a noble thing to do to defend the NHS, unlike you I am not happy about all this litigation business to suck it dry of money because some moron(s) wants a sex change, boob job or tummy tuck etc "coz they're entitles innit" under the HRA

I actually think anyone who uses the NHS should sign a waiver in which it is agreed that the NHS will do their best but if treatment fails the patient agrees not to sue them.

For a free service I think that is fair

Anyone who doesn't agree should go private and have the right to sue.

Bloody entitlement culture! Demanding more money for NHS whilst demanding the ridiculous to the level that the slightest thing going wrong will amount in in a law suit and the ruination of some doctor's reputation.

We are a Nation of useless bastards because everyone thinks they're entitled to anything and everything.

[LordRaven]

There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.

This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.

Hear hear!

[LordRaven]

There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.

This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.

Hang on a minute, there is data to suggest that surgeons are killing people and not doing their job properly, that's enough for the MOB to bay for their blood, get them struck off, make sure they never work in their privileged position again - that seems very reasonable to me.

Privileged?? The deaths were of people chronically bloody ill

[Dimples]

There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.

This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.

Hang on a minute, there is data to suggest that surgeons are killing people and not doing their job properly, that's enough for the MOB to bay for their blood, get them struck off, make sure they never work in their privileged position again - that seems very reasonable to me.

The data suggests nothing of the sort. Its manipulation can be made to say almost anything - but that would still not be conclusive.

In what way do you see surgeons as "privileged"?

[LordRaven]

There's nothing wrong with trying to maintain high standards of safety and best practice for patients. It is always important to find out where failings arise but that is not that this data aims to do. It aims to imply that responsibility for a post-operative death can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of a named individual. It takes no account of the fact that in the case of these three named surgeons, they are all working in surgical specialities with a higher than average number of critically sick patients, who may have concurrent disease or other medical problems will will impact upon how well they will fare after surgery. It is an unpalatable truth - but a truth nonetheless - that some of these patients would have died anyway, even without surgical intervention.

This sort of scaremongering is an excellent way of making surgeons reluctant to carry out certain sorts of therapeutic but high-risk procedures.

Hang on a minute, there is data to suggest that surgeons are killing people and not doing their job properly, that's enough for the MOB to bay for their blood, get them struck off, make sure they never work in their privileged position again - that seems very reasonable to me.

The data suggests nothing of the sort. Its manipulation can be made to say almost anything - but that would still not be conclusive.

In what way do you see surgeons as "privileged"?

Good question and spot on analysis.

[Big Fat Frosty]

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

I'll take that as your capitulation to reason.

reached raven bullshit quota for the day
levels are dangerously high

Nigel Farage has been caught on camera admitting he wants to replace the NHS with a US-style private insurance health system.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... ng-4617184

[Big Fat Frosty]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

[Dimples]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

Weasel words.

You'll notice that he doesn't specify what he has changed as a result of his review. Perhaps he now refers patients on to other surgeons if they require a particular procedure rather than take the risk with them himself. That's perfectly ethical of course but it could involve a patient having a longer wait for their surgery, which could in turn mean that their condition deteriorates in the interim - or in some cases they perhaps have to be referred to a hospital much further away, with the associated difficulties that can present.

I couldn't really blame anyone who decided to do that and minimise their own risks with particularly high-risk patients but there is just as likely to be criticism against any surgeon who "cherry picks" in this way as it is arguably unfair both to patients and to colleagues.

[LordRaven]

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

I'll take that as your capitulation to reason.

reached raven bullshit quota for the day
levels are dangerously high

Nigel Farage has been caught on camera admitting he wants to replace the NHS with a US-style private insurance health system.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ni ... ng-4617184

Well Nige has just shot himself in the foot big time

And as for BFF can you change it to Bullshit Fucking Factory when it comes to the Shower Of Shit garbage you believe about your beloved party

[Big Fat Frosty]

lol
ive only voted labour twice in 38 years.....
ive voted green far more

[LordRaven]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

Weasel words.

You'll notice that he doesn't specify what he has changed as a result of his review. Perhaps he now refers patients on to other surgeons if they require a particular procedure rather than take the risk with them himself. That's perfectly ethical of course but it could involve a patient having a longer wait for their surgery, which could in turn mean that their condition deteriorates in the interim - or in some cases they perhaps have to be referred to a hospital much further away, with the associated difficulties that can present.

I couldn't really blame anyone who decided to do that and minimise their own risks with particularly high-risk patients but there is just as likely to be criticism against any surgeon who "cherry picks" in this way as it is arguably unfair both to patients and to colleagues.

Spot on analysis again, Frosty and Co are inadvertently going to cause longer waiting times for many poor bastards who will now die in the queue rather than be out straight to the top of the list as "Urgent" because they need an op immediately.

Like you say, "Why take the risk?" Don't operate and let the patient die because one's figures will improve.

I wish some people would think through the ramifications of this idiotic policy

[LordRaven]

lol
ive only voted labour twice in 38 years.....
ive voted green far more

Well bully for you!
Go have a spliff to celebrate
As you like your Greens

[Big Fat Frosty]

Jonathan Hyde, a heart surgeon at Royal Sussex County Hospital, was found to have a a risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate of 6.63 per cent over a three-year period in which he performed more than 500 operations on adults.

Mr Hyde said he had taken action to improve his mortality rates, with more recent figures suggesting a significant improvement.

He said: “The data shown reflect higher mortality rates from my practice predominantly in the years 2011 and 2012 and therefore refer to outcomes from more than 18 months ago.

“In the light of these outcomes, I have reviewed my practice in detail with the support of an Individual Review from the Royal College of Surgeons. The mortality for my surgery for the period April 2013 to October 2014 has been 1.8 per cent prior to any adjustment for individual patient risk.”

seems one of the doctors found the revelation usefull

Weasel words.

You'll notice that he doesn't specify what he has changed as a result of his review. Perhaps he now refers patients on to other surgeons if they require a particular procedure rather than take the risk with them himself. That's perfectly ethical of course but it could involve a patient having a longer wait for their surgery, which could in turn mean that their condition deteriorates in the interim - or in some cases they perhaps have to be referred to a hospital much further away, with the associated difficulties that can present.

I couldn't really blame anyone who decided to do that and minimise their own risks with particularly high-risk patients but there is just as likely to be criticism against any surgeon who "cherry picks" in this way as it is arguably unfair both to patients and to colleagues.

his performance has improved
dramtically so there was obviously room for improvement
and he was spurred to find it
surely thats a good thing