Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluating surgical outcomes.

Simon Bergman1, Liane S Feldman, Jeffrey S Barkun

  • 1Department of Surgery, McGill University, Royal Victoria Hospital, 687 Pine Avenue West, Room S10-30, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1A1, Canada.

The Surgical Clinics of North America
|January 31, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Neural Minimum-Distance Estimation for Collision-Aware Operation of Multi-Arm Laparoscopy Surgical Robots Through Learning-from-Simulation.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Regulating digital surgery to balance safety and innovation: a SAGES white paper.

Surgical endoscopy·2026
Same author

The environmental impacts of surgical care pathways: same-day-discharge versus enhanced recovery following minimally invasive colectomy and stoma reversal.

Surgical endoscopy·2026
Same author

Impact of the Quebec Provincial Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Operation.

Journal of the American College of Surgeons·2026
Same author

Standardization of surgical gesture taxonomy: a SAGES Delphi consensus study.

Surgical endoscopy·2026
Same author

Genetic testing in kidney transplantation and living kidney donor risk assessment.

Kidney international·2026

Patient outcomes measurement is crucial for quality assessment and research. This study contrasts traditional measures with patient-centered outcomes and introduces composite outcomes for modern healthcare evaluation.

Area of Science:

  • Medical research
  • Quality improvement in healthcare
  • Surgical outcomes assessment

Background:

  • Patient outcomes measurement is vital for assessing healthcare quality and advancing clinical research.
  • Traditional outcome measures have limitations in capturing the full patient experience.
  • The need for comprehensive and patient-focused outcome assessment is increasingly recognized.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To describe the properties and processes of patient outcomes measurement.
  • To contrast traditional outcomes with patient-centered outcomes.
  • To evaluate measurement tools and introduce composite outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Review of traditional outcomes measurement properties and limitations.
  • Discussion of patient-centered outcomes and validated instruments.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Evaluation of measurement tools in surgical literature.
  • Introduction of composite outcomes concept.

    • Main Results:

    • Traditional outcomes have limitations; patient-centered outcomes offer a more holistic view.
    • Validated instruments are key for measuring health-related quality of life, function, pain, and satisfaction.
    • Several measurement tools in surgery have distinct strengths and weaknesses.
    • Composite outcomes reflect the multidimensional nature of patient care.

    Conclusions:

    • Patient-centered outcomes, measured by validated instruments, are essential for modern healthcare.
    • Composite outcomes provide a comprehensive approach to evaluating surgical interventions.
    • Accurate outcomes measurement drives quality improvement and informs clinical research.