Clavien classification in urology: Is there concordance among post-graduate trainees and attending urologists?

Authors

  • Mohamed A. Elkoushy Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Murilo A. Luz Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Tarik Benidir Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Saad Aldousari Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Armen G. Aprikian Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Sero Andonian Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.505

Keywords:

Clavien classification, surgical complications, urology, observer variation

Abstract

Purpose: We assess the variations between post-graduate trainees (PGTs) and attending urologists in applying the Revised Clavien-Dindo Classification System (RCCS) to urological complications.

Methods: Twenty postoperative complications were selected from urology service Quality Assurance meeting minutes spanning 1 year at a tertiary care centre. The cases were from adult and pediatric sites and included minor and major complications. After a briefing session to review the RCCS, the survey was administered to 16 attending urologists and 16 PGTs. Concordance rates between the two groups were calculated for each case and for the whole survey. Inter-rater agreement was calculated by kappa statistics.

Results: There was good overall agreement rate of 81% (range: 30-100) when both groups were compared. Thirteen of the 20 cases (65%) held an agreement rate above 80% (k = 0.753, p < 0.001) including 3 (15%) cases with 100% agreement. There were only 2 cases where the scores given by PGTs were significantly different from that given by attending urologists (p ≤ 0.03). There was no significant difference between both groups in terms of overall RCCS grades (p = 0.12). When all participants were compared as one group, there was good overall inter-rater agreement rate of 75% (k = 0.71). Although the percent of overall agreement rate among PGTs was higher than the attending urologists (82% [k = 0.79] vs. 69% [k = 0.64]), this was not significantly different (p = 0.68).

Conclusion: There was good overall agreement among PGTs and attending urologists in application of the RCCS in urology. Therefore, it is appropriate for PGTs to complete the Quality Assurance meeting reports.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-06-12

How to Cite

Elkoushy, M. A., Luz, M. A., Benidir, T., Aldousari, S., Aprikian, A. G., & Andonian, S. (2013). Clavien classification in urology: Is there concordance among post-graduate trainees and attending urologists?. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 7(5-6), 179–84. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.505

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 5-6 (2013): CUAJ June 2013

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.