Evaluating Surgeons on Intraoperative Disposable Supply Costs: Details Matter

Christopher P Childers, Ira S Hofer, Drew S Cheng, Melinda Maggard-Gibbons

Cost report cards have demonstrated variation in intraoperative supply costs and may allow comparisons between surgeons. However, cost data are complex and, if not properly vetted, may be inaccurate. A retrospective assessment of intraoperative supply costs for consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies (2013-2017) at a 4-facility academic center was performed. Using unadjusted data (akin to an auto-generated report card), surgeons were ranked and highest to lowest-cost ratios were calculated. Then, four stepwise adjustments were performed: (1) excluded non-comparable operations and low volume (< 10 cases) surgeons, (2) eliminated outlier cases based on instrument profiles, (3) stratified by facility, and (4) adjusted prices (assigned one price; corrected aberrant/missing prices). Surgeon rank and highest to lowest-cost ratios were then re-calculated. The unadjusted data identified 1392 cases for 33 surgeons (range, 1-317 cases). The ratio between the highest cost and lowest cost surgeon was 4.13. Steps 1 and 2 excluded 272 cases and 15 surgeons. Facility sample sizes ranged from 144 to 621 (step 3). Adjusting prices (step 4) required manual review of 472 unique items: 45% had > 1 price and 16 had missing prices. After all adjustments, surgeons had different rankings and highest to lowest-cost ratios within sites were smaller (ratio range, 1.17-2.10). Evaluating surgeons based on intraoperative supply costs is sensitive to analytic methods. Surgeons who were initially considered cost outliers became the least expensive within a given site. Auto-generated cost report cards may require additional analyses to produce accurate comparative assessments.