Variations and inter-relationship in outcome from emergency admissions in England: a retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics from 2005-2010.

BACKGROUND: The quality of care delivered and clinical outcomes of care are of paramount importance. Wide variations in the outcome of emergency care have been suggested, but the scale of variation, and the way in which outcomes are inter-related are poorly defined and are critical to understand how best to improve services. This study quantifies the scale of variation in three outcomes for a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing emergency medical and surgical admissions. The way in which the outcomes of different diagnoses relate to each other is investigated. METHODS: A retrospective study using the English Hospital Episode Statistics 2005-2010 with one-year follow-up for all patients with one of 20 of the commonest and highest-risk emergency medical or surgical conditions. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause risk-standardised mortality rate (in-RSMR). Secondary outcomes were 1-year all-cause risk-standardised mortality rate (1 yr-RSMR) and 28-day all-cause emergency readmission rate (RSRR). RESULTS: 2,406,709 adult patients underwent emergency medical or surgical admissions in the groups of interest. Clinically and statistically significant variations in outcome were observed between providers for all three outcomes (p < 0.001). For some diagnoses including heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke and fractured neck of femur, more than 20% of hospitals lay above the upper 95% control limit and were statistical outliers. The risk-standardised outcomes within a given hospital for an individual diagnostic group were significantly associated with the aggregated outcome of the other clinical groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-level risk-standardised outcomes for emergency admissions across a range of specialties vary considerably and cross traditional speciality boundaries. This suggests that global institutional infra-structure and processes of care influence outcomes. The implications are far reaching, both in terms of investigating performance at individual hospitals and in understanding how hospitals can learn from the best performers to improve outcomes

Establishing quality in colorectal surgery.

AIM: The review aimed to offer a contemporary perspective of the quality of current colorectal surgery. METHOD: A literature search was undertaken to identify relevant indicators. Citations were included if they related to quality in colorectal surgery. The search terms used included the Medical Subject Heading terms and Boolean characters: 'colon' OR 'colorectal', OR 'rectal' OR 'rectum' AND 'Quality Indicators', OR 'Quality Assurance', OR 'Quality of healthcare', OR 'Reference Standards', OR 'Quality' plus a variable floating term. A two-person independent review was undertaken from resulting citations and their consequent reference lists. The search was limited to citations from 2000 to 2010 in humans and to the English language. RESULTS: Metrics identified as potential quality indicators in colorectal surgery are discussed according to the structure, process and outcome framework. CONCLUSION: A clear appreciation of the scope of individual metrics for quality appraisal purposes is necessary if they are to be used meaningfully for performance benchmarking

An observational study of the frequency, severity, and etiology of failures in postoperative care after major elective general surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature of process failures in postoperative care, to assess their frequency and preventability, and to explore their relationship to adverse events. BACKGROUND: Adverse events are common and are frequently caused by failures in the process of care. These processes are often evaluated independently using clinical audit. There is little understanding of process failures in terms of their overall frequency, relative risk, and cumulative effect on the surgical patient. METHODS: Patients were observed daily from the first postoperative day until discharge by an independent surgeon. Field notes on the circumstances surrounding any nonroutine or atypical event were recorded. Field notes were assessed by 2 surgeons to identify failures in the process of care. Preventability, the degree of harm caused to the patient, and the underlying etiology of process failures were evaluated by 2 independent surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty patients undergoing major elective general surgery were observed for a total of 659 days of postoperative care. A total of 256 process failures were identified, of which 85% were preventable and 51% directly led to patient harm. Process failures occurred in all aspects of care, the most frequent being medication prescribing and administration, management of lines, tubes, and drains, and pain control interventions. Process failures accounted for 57% of all preventable adverse events. Communication failures and delays were the main etiologies, leading to 54% of process failures. CONCLUSIONS: Process failures are common in postoperative care, are highly preventable, and frequently cause harm to patients. Interventions to prevent process failures will improve the reliability of surgical postoperative care and have the potential to reduce hospital stay

An observational study of the frequency, severity, and etiology of failures in postoperative care after major elective general surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature of process failures in postoperative care, to assess their frequency and preventability, and to explore their relationship to adverse events. BACKGROUND: Adverse events are common and are frequently caused by failures in the process of care. These processes are often evaluated independently using clinical audit. There is little understanding of process failures in terms of their overall frequency, relative risk, and cumulative effect on the surgical patient. METHODS: Patients were observed daily from the first postoperative day until discharge by an independent surgeon. Field notes on the circumstances surrounding any nonroutine or atypical event were recorded. Field notes were assessed by 2 surgeons to identify failures in the process of care. Preventability, the degree of harm caused to the patient, and the underlying etiology of process failures were evaluated by 2 independent surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty patients undergoing major elective general surgery were observed for a total of 659 days of postoperative care. A total of 256 process failures were identified, of which 85% were preventable and 51% directly led to patient harm. Process failures occurred in all aspects of care, the most frequent being medication prescribing and administration, management of lines, tubes, and drains, and pain control interventions. Process failures accounted for 57% of all preventable adverse events. Communication failures and delays were the main etiologies, leading to 54% of process failures. CONCLUSIONS: Process failures are common in postoperative care, are highly preventable, and frequently cause harm to patients. Interventions to prevent process failures will improve the reliability of surgical postoperative care and have the potential to reduce hospital stay

Curriculum-based solo virtual reality training for laparoscopic intracorporeal knot tying: objective assessment of the transfer of skill from virtual reality to reality.

BACKGROUND: Very few studies have addressed the transferability of skills from virtual reality (VR) to real life. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of teaching intracorporeal knot tying (ICKT) by VR simulation only. METHODS: Twenty novices underwent structured training of basic skills training on the Minimally Invasive Surgical Trainer simulator (Mentice AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) followed by knot tying training on the LapSim simulator (Surgical Science, Gothenburg, Sweden). They were assessed pre- and post-training on a video trainer. Assessment of performance included motion tracking and video-based checklist. Nonparametric statistical analysis was used, and P &lt; .05 was deemed significant. RESULTS: All participants completed a correct knot as compared with only 25% before VR training. Time to completion was 66% faster and knot quality 45% better after VR training. Significant reduction in number of movements (P = .006) and distance traveled (P &lt; .000) by both hands after VR training. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching ICKT by VR simulators only is feasible and effective. Furthermore, this study highlights the complementary use of different VR simulators within a structured curriculum

Failure to rescue patients after reintervention in gastroesophageal cancer surgery in England.

IMPORTANCE: Gastroesophageal cancer resections are associated with significant reintervention and perioperative mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes following operative and nonoperative reinterventions between high- and low-mortality gastroesophageal cancer surgical units in England. DESIGN: All elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer between 2000 and 2010 in English public hospitals were identified from a national administrative database. Units were divided into low- and high-mortality units (LMUs and HMUs, respectively) using a threshold of 5% or less for 30-day adjusted mortality. The groups were compared for reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications. SETTING: Both LMUs and HMUs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent esophageal and gastric resections for cancer. EXPOSURE: Elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer, with reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Failure to rescue is defined as the death of a patient following a complication; failure to rescue-surgical is defined as the death of a patient following reoperation for a surgical complication. RESULTS: There were 14 955 esophagectomies and 10 671 gastrectomies performed in 141 units. For gastroesophageal resections combined, adjusted mortality rates were 3.0% and 8.3% (P < .001) for LMUs and HMUs, respectively. Complications rates preceding reoperation were similar (5.4% for LMUs vs. 4.9% for HMUs; P = .11). The failure to rescue-surgical rates were lower in LMUs than in HMUs (15.3% vs. 24.1%; P < .001). The LMUs performed more nonoperative reinterventions than the HMUs did (6.7% vs. 4.7%; P < .001), with more patients surviving in LMUs than in HMUs (failure to rescue rate, 7.0% vs. 12.5%; P < .001). Overall, LMUs reintervened more than HMUs did (12.2% vs 9.6%; P < .001), and LMUs had lower failure to rescue rates following reintervention than HMUs did (9.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .001). All P values stated refer to 2-sided values. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Overall, LMUs were more likely to reintervene and rescue patients following gastroesophageal cancer resections in England. Patients were more likely to survive following both reoperations and nonsurgical interventions in LMUs

A systematic review to identify the factors that affect failure to rescue and escalation of care in surgery

Background The relationship between the ability to recognize and respond to patient deterioration (escalate care) and its role in preventing failure to rescue (FTR; mortality after a surgical complication) has not been explored. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the incidence of, and factors contributing to, FTR and delayed escalation of care for surgical patients. Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE PsycINFO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to identify articles exploring FTR, escalation of care, and interventions that influence outcomes. Screening of 19,887 citations led to inclusion of 42 articles. Results The reported incidence of FTR varied between 8.0 and 16.9%. FTR was inversely related to hospital volume and nurse staffing levels. Delayed escalation occurred in 20.7–47.1% of patients and was associated with greater mortality rates in 4 studies (P < .05). Causes of delayed escalation included hierarchy and failures in communication. Of five interventional studies, two reported a significant decrease in intensive care admissions (P < .01) after introduction of escalation protocols; only 1 study reported an improvement in mortality. Conclusion This systematic review explored factors linking FTR and escalation of care in surgery. Important factors that contribute to the avoidance of preventable harm include the recognition and communication of serious deterioration to implement definitive treatment. Targeted interventions aiming to improve these factors may contribute to enhanced patient outcome

Value of failure to rescue as a marker of the standard of care following reoperation for complications after colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Complication management appears to be of vital importance to differences in survival following surgery between surgical units. Failure-to-rescue (FTR) rates have not yet distinguished surgical from general medical complications. The aim of this study was to assess whether variability exists in FTR rates after reoperation for serious surgical complications following colorectal cancer resections in England. METHODS: The Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database was used to identify patients undergoing primary resection for colorectal cancer between 2000 and 2008 in English National Health Service (NHS) trusts. Units were ranked into quintiles according to overall risk-adjusted mortality. Highest and lowest mortality quintiles were compared with respect to reoperation rates and FTR-surgical (FTR-S) rates. FTR-S was defined as the proportion of patients with an unplanned reoperation who died within the same admission. RESULTS: Some 144 542 patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer in 150 English NHS trusts were included. On ranking according to risk-adjusted mortality, rates varied significantly between lowest and highest mortality quintiles (5·4 and 9·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·029). Lowest and highest mortality quintiles had equivalent adjusted reoperation rates (both 4·8 per cent; P = 0·211). FTR-S rates were significantly higher at units within the worst mortality quintile (16·8 versus 11·1 per cent; P = 0·002). CONCLUSION: FTR-S rates differed significantly between English colorectal units, highlighting variability in ability to prevent death in this high-risk group. This variability may represent differences in serious surgical complication management. FTR-S represents a readily collectable marker of surgical complication management that is likely to be applicable to other surgical specialties

Single measures of performance do not reflect overall institutional quality in colorectal cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate overall performance of English colorectal cancer surgical units identified as outliers for a single quality measure--30 day inhospital mortality. DESIGN: 144,542 patients that underwent primary major colorectal cancer resection between 2000/2001 and 2007/2008 in 149 English National Health Service units were included from hospital episodes statistics. Casemix adjusted funnel plots were constructed for 30 day inhospital mortality, length of stay, unplanned readmission within 28 days, reoperation, failure to rescue-surgical (FTR-S) and abdominoperineal excision (APE) rates. Institutional performance was evaluated across all other domains for institutions deemed outliers for 30 day mortality. Outliers were those that lay on or breached 3 SD control limits. 'Acceptable' performance was defined if units appeared under the upper 2 SD limit. RESULTS: 5 high mortality outlier (HMO) units and 15 low mortality outlier (LMO) units were identified. Of the five HMO units, two were substandard performance outliers (ie, above 3 SD) on another metric (both on high reoperation rates). A further two HMO institutions exceeded the second but not the third SD limits for substandard performance on other outcome metrics. One of the 15 LMO units exceeded 3 SD for substandard performance (APE rate). One LMO institution exceeded the second but not the third SD control limits for high reoperation rates. Institutional mortality correlated with FTR-S and reoperations (R=0.445, p&lt;0.001 and R=0.191, p&lt;0.020 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Performance appraisal in colorectal surgery is complex and dependent on stakeholder perspective. Benchmarking units solely on a single performance measure is over simplistic and potentially hazardous. A global appraisal of institutional outcome is required to contextualise performance

Value of failure to rescue as a marker of the standard of care following reoperation for complications after colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Complication management appears to be of vital importance to differences in survival following surgery between surgical units. Failure-to-rescue (FTR) rates have not yet distinguished surgical from general medical complications. The aim of this study was to assess whether variability exists in FTR rates after reoperation for serious surgical complications following colorectal cancer resections in England. METHODS: The Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database was used to identify patients undergoing primary resection for colorectal cancer between 2000 and 2008 in English National Health Service (NHS) trusts. Units were ranked into quintiles according to overall risk-adjusted mortality. Highest and lowest mortality quintiles were compared with respect to reoperation rates and FTR-surgical (FTR-S) rates. FTR-S was defined as the proportion of patients with an unplanned reoperation who died within the same admission. RESULTS: Some 144 542 patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer in 150 English NHS trusts were included. On ranking according to risk-adjusted mortality, rates varied significantly between lowest and highest mortality quintiles (5·4 and 9·3 per cent respectively; P = 0·029). Lowest and highest mortality quintiles had equivalent adjusted reoperation rates (both 4·8 per cent; P = 0·211). FTR-S rates were significantly higher at units within the worst mortality quintile (16·8 versus 11·1 per cent; P = 0·002). CONCLUSION: FTR-S rates differed significantly between English colorectal units, highlighting variability in ability to prevent death in this high-risk group. This variability may represent differences in serious surgical complication management. FTR-S represents a readily collectable marker of surgical complication management that is likely to be applicable to other surgical specialties