Attribution 2.0: whose complication is it? - 18/04/17
, Theresa Jackson, M.D. a, Vaidehi Agrawal, Ph.D. b, Antonio Arazosa, M.D. c, Benjamin Newman, M.D. d, Michael S. Truitt, M.D. aAbstract |
Background |
Payment models aimed at improving quality and curbing costs are being deployed, and hospitals are evaluating complications more closely. To decrease complications, hospitals must first “attribute” them to a responsible party. Our study uses a rigorous approach to attribution in the trauma population.
Methods |
Twelve months of complications were reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel. Physicians, patients, nursing, and the hospital were all incorporated into the model. A point system was developed for each complication. Fractional points were given when multiple parties were involved.
Results |
One hundred twenty-five complications were analyzed. Complications were attributed as follows: 30% neurosurgery, 22% trauma surgery (100% using the traditional method), 17% orthopedic surgery, 14% nursing, 9.6% plastics, 3.8% hospital, 1.6% patient, 1.4% urology, and .6% vascular.
Conclusions |
Up to 78% of complications were incorrectly ascribed using the traditional method. Almost 20% of complications resulted from factors outside the physician's control. Before complications can be reduced, their most proximate cause must be identified. Surgeons should own these data and lead the effort to improve quality and decrease complications.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Trauma, Complications, Attribution
Plan
| There were no relevant financial relationships or any sources of support in the form of grants, equipment, or drugs. |
|
| The authors declare no conflicts of interest. |
Vol 212 - N° 6
P. 1090-1095 - décembre 2016 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
