English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Patterns of surgical care, outcomes, and quality of care can be assessed using hospital administrative databases but this requires accurate and complete data. The aim of this study was to explore whether the quality of hospital administrative data was sufficient to assess pituitary surgery practice in England. The study analysed Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from April 2013 to March 2018 on all adult patients undergoing pituitary surgery in England. A series of data quality indicators examined the attribution of cases to consultants, the coding of sellar and parasellar lesions, associated endocrine and visual disorders, and surgical procedures. Differences in data quality over time and between neurosurgical units were examined. A total of 5613 records describing pituitary procedures were identified. Overall, 97.3% had a diagnostic code for the tumour or lesion treated, with 29.7% ( n  = 1669) and 17.8% ( n  = 1000) describing endocrine and visual disorders, respectively. There was a significant reduction from the first to the fifth year in records that only contained a pituitary tumour code (63.7%–47.0%,  p  &lt; .001). The use of procedure codes that attracted the highest tariff increased over time (66.4%–82.4%,  p  &lt; .001). Patterns of coding varied widely between the 24 neurosurgical units. The quality of HES data on pituitary surgery has improved over time but there is wide variation in the quality of data between neurosurgical units. Research studies and quality improvement programmes using these data need to check it is of sufficient quality to not invalidate their results.

Assessing national patterns and outcomes of pituitary surgery: is hospital administrative data good enough?