Potential Conflicting Interests for Surgeons in End-of-Life Care. (November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Golden, Adam G.; Silverman, Michael A.; Heller, Andrew; Loyal, Michael; Cendan, Juan
• Is Part Of: American journal of hospice & palliative care. Volume 32:Number 7(2015)
• Page Start: 763
• Page End: 766
• Publication Date: 2015-11
• Subjects: hospice -- surgeon -- outcomes -- mortality -- physician report cards -- physician rating; Hospice care -- Periodicals; Palliative treatment -- Periodicals; 362.175
• DOI: 10.1177/1049909114543321
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-9091

Abstract

Thirty-day mortality represents a variable that is commonly used to measure the quality of surgical care. The definition of 30-day mortality and the application of a risk adjustment to its measurement may vary among different organizations comparing physician quality. In the midst of this confusion, conflicting interests arise for surgeons who must weigh the potential benefit of surgical interventions to individual patients versus the potential loss of access by future patients should 30-day mortality ratings be adversely affected. Similarly, surgeons may become adversely impacted by the lack of compensation from avoiding "high-risk" cases, but might face a more severe financial impact if they have a higher mortality rating compared to their peers.