{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015665796344647518, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0045691906005221935, 'mean_word_length': 6.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discrepancy in Postoperative Outcomes between Auditing Databases: A NSQIP Comparison

In 2014, ACS-NSQIP® targeted pancreatectomies to improve outcome reporting and risk calculation related to pancreatectomy. At the same time, our department began prospectively collecting data for pancreatectomy in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery® Interactive Audit System (EIAS). The purpose of this study is to compare reported outcomes between two major auditing databases for the same patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The same 171 patients were identified in both databases. Clinical outcomes were then obtained from each database and compared to determine whether reported complication rates were statistically different between auditing databases. A combination of Wilcoxon rank sum and Pearson's chi-squared tests were used to calculate statistical significance. No significant difference was appreciated in captured demographics between EIAS and NSQIP. Significant differences in reported rates for renal dysfunction, postoperative pancreatic fistula, return to the operative room, and urinary tract infection were noted between EIAS and NSQIP. Although significant differences in reported complication rates were demonstrated between EIAS and NSQIP for pancreatectomy, much of the discrepancy is attributable to subtle differences in definitions for postoperative occurrences between the two auditing databases. It is vital for surgeons to understand the exact definition that determines the complication rate for a given database.