4.5 Article

Association of Surgical Volume and Quality Management in Thyroid Surgery: A Two-Nation Multicenter Study

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 43, 期 9, 页码 2218-2227

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05012-z

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background High-volume caseload in thyroid surgery is associated with lower postoperative complication rates resulting to better outcomes. The aim of the present study was to investigate the correlation of the departments' annual number of thyroid surgeries on the adherence to consensus guidelines and on the implementation of measures for quality assurance.MethodsIn 2016, we sent an anonymous electronic survey with questions related to the perioperative management in thyroid surgery to all directors of departments in operative medicine in Switzerland and Austria. We compared the pre- and postoperative management with the summarized recommendations of the four most frequently used consensus guidelines. Analogously, we analyzed the implementation of six measures for quality assurance related to thyroid surgery for each participating department. Using logistic regression analysis, we evaluated the correlation of number of guidelines respected and number of measures for quality assurance with the departments' annual number of surgeries performed. Furthermore, we evaluated the number of departments providing thyroid cancer surgery and their experience in neck dissection.ResultsThe management corresponded in 64.0% to the summarized recommendations. Adherence to the summarized recommendations and implementation of measures for quality assurance were significantly more likely with increasing numbers of surgeries performed (p=0.049 and p<0.001). Ninety-two departments provided thyroid cancer surgery, whereas 12/92 (13.0%) were not able to perform central and/or lateral neck dissection.ConclusionConsensus guidelines are insufficiently implemented within thyroid surgery, and quality management is associated with surgical volume.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据