Establishing Key Performance Indicators for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United Kingdom

Background and aimsHealthcare quality improvement (QI) is the systematic process to continuously improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients. The landmark Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) UK National Audits provided a means to measure the variation in care, highlighting the need to define the standards of excellence in IBD care. Through a consensus approach, we aimed to establish key performance indicators (KPIs), providing reliable benchmarks for IBD care delivery in UK.MethodsKPIs that measure critical aspects of a patient journey within an IBD service were identified though stakeholder meetings. A two-stage Delphi consensus was then conducted. The first involved a multidisciplinary team of IBD clinicians and patients to refine definitions and methodology. The second stage assessed feasibility and utility of the proposed QI process by surveying gastroenterology services across UK.ResultsFirst, the four proposed KPIs were refined and included time from primary care referral to diagnosis in secondary care, time to treatment recommendation following a diagnosis, appropriate use of steroids and advanced therapies prescreening and assessment. Second, the Delphi consensus reported >85% agreement on the feasibility of local adoption of the QI process and >75% agreement on the utility of benchmarking of the KPIs.ConclusionsThrough a structured approach, we propose quantifiable KPIs for benchmarking to improve and reduce the individual variation in IBD care across the UK

Developing a Standard Set of Patient-Centred Outcomes for Inflammatory Bowel Disease—an International, Cross-disciplinary Consensus

Success in delivering value-based healthcare involves measuring outcomes that matter most to patients. Our aim was to develop a minimum Standard Set of patient-centred outcome measures for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), for use in different healthcare settings.An international working group (n=25) representing patients, patient associations, gastroenterologists, surgeons, specialist nurses, IBD registries and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) methodologists participated in a series of teleconferences incorporating a modified Delphi process. Systematic review of existing literature, registry data, patient focus groups and open review periods were used to reach consensus on a minimum set of standard outcome measures and risk adjustment variables. Similar methodology has been used in 21 other disease areas (www.ichom.org).A minimum Standard Set of outcomes was developed for patients (aged ≥16) with IBD. Outcome domains included survival and disease control (survival, disease activity/remission, colorectal cancer, anaemia), disutility of care (treatment-related complications), healthcare utilisation (IBD-related admissions, emergency room visits) and patient-reported outcomes (including quality of life, nutritional status and impact of fistulae) measured at baseline and at 6 or 12 month intervals. A single PROM (IBD-Control questionnaire) was recommended in the Standard Set and minimum risk adjustment data collected at baseline and annually were included: demographics, basic clinical information and treatment factors.A Standard Set of outcome measures for IBD has been developed based on evidence, patient input and specialist consensus. It provides an international template for meaningful, comparable and easy-to-interpret measures as a step towards achieving value-based healthcare in IBD

Developing a Standard Set of Patient-Centred Outcomes for inflammatory Bowel Disease-an international, cross-disciplinary consensus

Background and Aims: Success in delivering value-based healthcare involves measuring outcomes that matter most to patients. Our aim was to develop a minimum Standard Set of patient-centred outcome measures for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], for use in different healthcare settings. Methods: An international working group [n = 25] representing patients, patient associations, gastroenterologists, surgeons, specialist nurses, IBD registries and patient-reported outcome measure [PROM] methodologists participated in a series of teleconferences incorporating a modified Delphi process. Systematic review of existing literature, registry data, patient focus groups and open review periods were used to reach consensus on a minimum set of standard outcome measures and risk adjustment variables. Similar methodology has been used in 21 other disease areas [www.ichom.org]. Results: A minimum Standard Set of outcomes was developed for patients [aged =16] with IBD. Outcome domains included survival and disease control [survival, disease activity/remission, colorectal cancer, anaem

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London