FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2040762653> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2040762653 endingPage "163" @default.
• W2040762653 startingPage "160" @default.
• W2040762653 abstract "I t would be easy to read the article from Westaby and colleagues and come to the conclusion that UK medical policymakers had completely lost the plot. If you take what the authors say at face value, the programme to publish named surgeons’ outcomes has proved to be a terrible mistake in the US and is now creating carnage in the UK. What you might also conclude is that the RCS has been ‘duped’ into giving support to a fatally flawed initiative. Why is there such a difference in perspective? The public accountability agenda in surgery is unpopular with some surgeons. It is part of a wider initiative of transparency driven by the government. But it was not, as Westaby suggests, the government that was originally responsible for the recommendation to report surgeons’ outcomes as a ‘punitive post-Bristol political directive’. It came from Sir Ian Kennedy, a lawyer, in the Bristol Public Inquiry report back in 2001. Those recommendations were fulfilled for adult cardiac surgery in 2005, but other specialties lagged behind. When Robert Francis heard the evidence associated with the events at Mid Staffs, he came up with a similar view. The current consultant outcomes publication programme across 13 specialties is the response. So is this all directly antagonistic to the evidence from the US? The argument is, of course, much more subtle. Public reporting was introduced in the US in New York State in 1990 and has been in place in some other states also. The pertinent questions posed by Hannan et al in a recent review of the NY experiences are: Does it improve quality? Are there unintended negative consequences? Does it act to maintain trust in hospitals and the medical profession? There are quite a lot of data on all of this, but they are generally of fairly low level and not all of them are cited by Westaby and colleagues. For example, some major database studies have shown" @default.
• W2040762653 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2040762653 creator A5013579410 @default.
• W2040762653 date "2015-04-01" @default.
• W2040762653 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2040762653 title "Patient-facing data is essential in the digital era" @default.
• W2040762653 cites W1972258819 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W1997030095 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2033242087 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2037744344 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2042425761 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2050446316 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2055543652 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2098967927 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2099618451 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2131497966 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2138235060 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W2147793125 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W25666257 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W3121973798 @default.
• W2040762653 cites W78570407 @default.
• W2040762653 doi "https://doi.org/10.1308/147363515x14134529302623" @default.
• W2040762653 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2040762653 type Work @default.
• W2040762653 sameAs 2040762653 @default.
• W2040762653 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2040762653 countsByYear W20407626532015 @default.
• W2040762653 countsByYear W20407626532016 @default.
• W2040762653 countsByYear W20407626532017 @default.
• W2040762653 countsByYear W20407626532019 @default.
• W2040762653 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2040762653 hasAuthorship W2040762653A5013579410 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C2991716581 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C108827166 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C110875604 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C136764020 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C2522767166 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C2991716581 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C41008148 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C71924100 @default.
• W2040762653 hasConceptScore W2040762653C95457728 @default.
• W2040762653 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2040762653 hasLocation W20407626531 @default.
• W2040762653 hasOpenAccess W2040762653 @default.
• W2040762653 hasPrimaryLocation W20407626531 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W1996408511 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W2587378159 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W2793073678 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W2975025251 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W3153743692 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W4235956580 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W4247880953 @default.
• W2040762653 hasRelatedWork W4253084324 @default.
• W2040762653 hasVolume "97" @default.
• W2040762653 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2040762653 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2040762653 magId "2040762653" @default.
• W2040762653 workType "article" @default.