Was Rodney Ledward a statistical outlier? Retrospective analysis using routine hospital data to identify gynaecologists' performance

Abstract Objectives To investigate whether routinely collected data from hospital episode statistics could be used to identify the gynaecologist Rodney Ledward, who was suspended in 1966 and was the subject of the Ritchie inquiry into quality and practice within the NHS. Design A mixed scanning approach was used to identify seven variables from hospital episode statistics that were likely to be associated with potentially poor performance. A blinded multivariate analysis was undertaken to determine the distance (known as the Mahalanobis distance) in the seven indicator multidimensional space that each consultant was from the average consultant in each year. The change in Mahalanobis distance over time was also investigated by using a mixed effects model. Setting NHS hospital trusts in two English regions, in the five years from 1991-2 to 1995-6. Population Gynaecology consultants (n = 143) and their hospital episode statistics data. Main outcome measure Whether Ledward was a statistical outlier at the 95% level. Results The proportion of consultants who were outliers in any one year (at the 95% significance level) ranged from 9% to 20%. Ledward appeared as an outlier in three of the fiveyears. Our mixed effects (multi-year) model identified nine high outlier consultants, including Ledward. Conclusion It was possible to identify Ledward as an outlier by using hospital episode statistics data. Although our method found other outlier consultants, we strongly caution that these outliers should not be overinterpreted as indicative of “poor” performance. Instead, a scientific search for a credible explanation should be undertaken, but this was outside the remit of our study. The set of indicators used means that cancer specialists, for example, are likely to have high values for several indicators, and the approach needs to be refined to deal with case mix variation. Even after allowing for that, the interpretation of outlier status is still as yet unclear. Further prospective evaluation of our method is warranted, but our overall approach may be potentially useful in other settings, especially where performance entails several indicator variables.

[1]  Amitai Etzioni Mixed-Scanning: A 'Third' Approach to Decision-Making , 1967 .

[2]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Robust regression and outlier detection , 1987 .

[3]  R. Little A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data with Missing Values , 1988 .

[4]  P. Dunn The Wisheart affair: paediatric cardiological services in Bristol, 1990-5 , 1998, BMJ.

[5]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data , 1999, BMJ.

[6]  Nicky Best,et al.  Comparison of UK paediatric cardiac surgical performance by analysis of routinely collected data 1984–96: was Bristol an outlier? , 2001, The Lancet.

[7]  A. Walker,et al.  A systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. , 2001, Journal of public health medicine.

[8]  Peter Comber,et al.  BBC News Online , 2002 .

[9]  G. Teasdale Learning from Bristol: report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995 , 2002, British journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  S. Mason,et al.  What to do about poor clinical performance in clinical trials. , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Richard Lilford,et al.  Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma , 2004, The Lancet.

[12]  A. Bottle,et al.  How often are adverse events reported in English hospital statistics? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Divya Patel,et al.  An investigation into general practitioners associated with high patient mortality flagged up through the Shipman inquiry: retrospective analysis of routine data , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  Dr Foster's case notes: How often are adverse events reported in English hospital statistics? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.