We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Invited Commentary |

Timing May Not Be Everything

Leigh Neumayer, MD, MS1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
JAMA Surg. 2013;148(7):657. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.157.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Ideally, any metric (especially a publicly reported one) should be reliable and valid. If it is a process measure, there should be a long track record of reports confirming that adherence to the measure is associated with significantly better results than nonadherence to the measure. Using large, validated, reliable data sets and sophisticated statistical analyses, Hawn et al1 have furthered their work showing little relationship between adherence to the publicly reported “quality” measure of the right antibiotic within 60 minutes of incision and improved outcomes. In this analysis, multiple statistical methods were used to tease out any potential associations. While there was a small association between antibiotic timing and surgical site infection in unadjusted analyses, the difference disappeared when the models were adjusted for patient, procedure, and antibiotic variables. This article is not a call to abandon prophylactic antibiotics when indicated, as most studies have shown a significant reduction in postoperative surgical site infections with their use (when compared with no antibiotics). However, it does once again strongly suggest that the current publicly reported measures are not associated with improved outcomes. As surgeons, we should work with federal and local agencies to define metrics that are more robustly associated with better outcomes for our patients.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles