Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prioritizing Quality Improvement in General Surgery

Schilling, Peter L., Dimick, Justin B., Birkmeyer, John D.·2008·Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite growing interest in quality improvement, uncertainty remains about which procedures offer the most room for improvement in general surgery. In this context, we sought to describe the relative contribution of different procedures to overall morbidity, mortality, and excess length of stay in general surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from the American College of Surgeons' National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), we identified all patients undergoing a general surgery procedure in 2005 and 2006 (n=129,233). Patients were placed in 36 distinct procedure groups based on Current Procedural Terminology codes. We first examined procedure groups according to their relative contribution to overall morbidity and mortality. We then assessed procedure groups according to their contribution to overall excess length of stay. RESULTS: Ten procedure groups alone accounted for 62% of complications and 54% of excess hospital days. Colectomy accounted for the greatest share of adverse events, followed by small intestine resection, inpatient cholecystectomy, and ventral hernia repair. In contrast, several common procedures contributed little to overall morbidity and mortality. For example, outpatient cholecystectomy, breast procedures, thyroidectomy, parathyroidectomy, and outpatient inguinal hernia repair together accounted for 34% of procedures, but only 6% of complications (and only 4% of major complications). These same procedures accounted for < 1% of excess hospital days. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small number of procedures account for a disproportionate share of the morbidity, mortality, and excess hospital days in general surgery. Focusing quality improvement efforts on these procedures may be an effective strategy for improving patient care and reducing cost.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.06.138

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Schilling, P. L., Dimick, J. B., & Birkmeyer, J. D.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Published
2008-11
Volume
207
Issue
5
Pages
698-704
ISSN
1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105757439
Cited by
268
References
0
FWCI
29.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prioritizing Quality Improvement in General Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.06.138
The paper
Schilling, P. L., Dimick, J. B., & Birkmeyer, J. D. (2008). Prioritizing Quality Improvement in General Surgery. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.06.138

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.