Volume and in-hospital mortality after emergency abdominal surgery: a national population-based study

Objectives Emergency abdominal surgery (EAS) refers to high-risk intra-abdominal surgical procedures undertaken for acute gastrointestinal pathology. The relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and mortality of patients undergoing EAS is poorly understood. This study examined this relationship at the national level. Design This is a national population-based study using a full administrative inpatient dataset (National Quality Assurance Improvement System) from publicly funded hospitals in Ireland. Setting 24 public hospitals providing EAS services. Participants and Interventions Patients undergoing EAS as identified by primary procedure codes during the period 2014–2018. Main outcome measures The main outcome measure was adjusted in-hospital mortality following EAS in publicly funded Irish hospitals. Mortality rates were adjusted for sex, age, admission source, Charlson Comorbidity Index, procedure complexity, organ system and primary diagnosis. Differences in overall, 7-day and 30-day in-hospital mortality for hospitals with low ( Results The study included 10 344 EAS episodes. 798 in-hospital deaths occurred, giving an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 77 per 1000 episodes. There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted mortality rate between low and high volume hospitals. Low volume surgical teams had a higher adjusted mortality rate (85.4 deaths/1000 episodes) compared with high volume teams (54.7 deaths/1000 episodes), a difference that persisted among low volume surgeons practising in high volume hospitals. Conclusion Patients undergoing EAS managed by high volume surgeons have better survival outcomes. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion regarding configuration of emergency surgery services and emphasise the need for effective clinical governance regarding observed variation in outcomes within and between institutions.</p

K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease as a public health problem. Chronic kidney disease is a worldwide public health problem. In the United States, there is a rising incidence and prevalence of kidney failure, with poor outcomes and high cost. There is an even higher prevalence of earlier stages of chronic kidney disease. Increasing evidence, accrued in the past decades, indicates that the adverse outcomes of chronic kidney disease, such as kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, and premature death, can be prevented or delayed. Earlier stages of chronic kidney disease can be detected through laboratory testing. Treatment of earlier stages of chronic kidney disease is effective in slowing the progression toward kidney failure. Initiation of treatment for cardiovascular risk factors at earlier stages of chronic kidney disease should be effective in reducing cardiovascular disease events both before and after the onset of kidney failure. Unfortunately, chronic kidney disease is "under-diagnosed" and "under-treated" in the United States, resulting in lost opportunities for prevention. One reason is the lack of agreement on a definition and classification of stages in the progression of chronic kidney disease. A clinically applicable classification would be based on laboratory evaluation of the severity of kidney disease, association of level of kidney function with complications, and stratification of risks for loss of kidney function and development of cardiovascular disease. Charge to the K/DOQI work group on chronic kidney disease. In 2000, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) Advisory Board approved development of clinical practice guidelines to define chronic kidney disease and to classify stages in the progression of chronic kidney disease. The Work Group charged with developing the guidelines consisted of experts in nephrology, pediatric nephrology, epidemiology, laboratory medicine, nutrition, social work, gerontology, and family medicine. An Evidence Review Team, consisting of nephrologists and methodologists, was responsible for assembling the evidence. Defining chronic kidney disease and classifying the stages of severity would provide a common language for communication among providers, patients and their families, investigators, and policy-makers and a framework for developing a public health approach to affect care and improve outcomes of chronic kidney disease. A uniform terminology would permit: 1. More reliable estimates of the prevalence of earlier stages of disease and of the population at increased risk for development of chronic kidney disease 2. Recommendations for laboratory testing to detect earlier stages and progression to later stages 3. Associations of stages with clinical manifestations of disease 4. Evaluation of factors associated with a high risk of progression from one stage to the next or of development of other adverse outcomes 5. Evaluation of treatments to slow progression or prevent other adverse outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines, clinical performance measures, and continuous quality improvement efforts could then be directed to stages of chronic kidney disease. The Work Group did not specifically address evaluation and treatment for chronic kidney disease. However, this guideline contains brief reference to diagnosis and clinical interventions and can serve as a "road map" linking other clinical practice guidelines and pointing out where other guidelines need to be developed. Eventually, K/DOQI will include interventional guidelines. The first three of these, on bone disease, dyslipidemia, and blood pressure management are currently under development. Other guidelines on cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients and kidney biopsy will be initiated in the Winter of 2001. This report contains a summary of background information available at the time the Work Group began its deliberations, the 15 guidelines and the accompanying rationale, suggestions for clinical performance measures, a clinical approach to chronic kidney disease using these guidelines, and appendices to describe methods for the review of evidence. The guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature and the consensus of the Work Group. The guidelines have been reviewed by the K/DOQI Advisory Board, a large number of professional organizations and societies, selected experts, and interested members of the public and have been approved by the Board of Directors of the NKF. Framework. The Work Group defined "chronic kidney disease" to include conditions that affect the kidney, with the potential to cause either progressive loss of kidney function or complications resulting from decreased kidney function. Chronic kidney disease was thus defined as the presence of kidney damage or decreased level of kidney function for three months or more, irrespective of diagnosis. The target population includes individuals with chronic kidney disease or at increased risk of developing chronic kidney disease. The majority of topics focus on adults (age ≥18 years). Many of the same principles apply to children as well. In particular, the classification of stages of disease and principles of diagnostic testing are similar. A subcommittee of the Work Group examined issues related to children and participated in development of the first six guidelines of the present document. However, there are sufficient differences between adults and children in the association of GFR with signs and symptoms of uremia and in stratification of risk for adverse outcomes that these latter issues are addressed only for adults. A separate set of guidelines for children will have to be developed by a later Work Group. The target audience includes a wide range of individuals: those who have or are at increased risk of developing chronic kidney disease (the target population) and their families; health care professionals caring for the target population; manufacturers of instruments and diagnostic laboratories performing measurements of kidney function; agencies and institutions planning, providing or paying for the health care needs of the target population; and investigators studying chronic kidney disease. There will be only brief reference to clinical interventions, sufficient to provide a basis for other clinical practice guidelines relevant to the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Subsequent K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines will be based on the framework developed here. Definition of chronic kidney disease. Why "Kidney"? The word "kidney" is of Middle English origin and is immediately understood by patients, their families, providers, health care professionals, and the lay public of native English speakers. On the other hand, "renal" and "nephrology," derived from Latin and Greek roots, respectively, commonly require interpretation and explanation. The Work Group and the NKF are committed to communicating in language that can be widely understood, hence the preferential use of "kidney" throughout these guidelines. The term "End-Stage Renal Disease" (ESRD) has been retained because of its administrative usage in the United States referring to patients treated by dialysis or transplantation, irrespective of their level of kidney function. Why Develop a New Classification? Currently, there is no uniform classification of the stages of chronic kidney disease. A review of textbooks and journal articles clearly demonstrates ambiguity and overlap in the meaning of current terms. The Work Group concluded that uniform definitions of terms and stages would improve communication between patients and providers, enhance public education, and promote dissemination of research results. In addition, it was believed that uniform definitions would enhance conduct of clinical research. Why Base a New Classification System on Severity of Disease? Adverse outcomes of kidney disease are based on the level of kidney function and risk of loss of function in the future. Chronic kidney disease tends to worsen over time. Therefore, the risk of adverse outcomes increases over time with disease severity. Many disciplines in medicine, including related specialties of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and transplantation, have adopted classification systems based on severity to guide clinical interventions, research, and professional and public education. Such a model is essential for any public health approach to disease. Why Classify Severity as the Level of GFR? The level of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is widely accepted as the best overall measure of kidney function in health and disease. Providers and patients are familiar with the concept that "the kidney is like a filter." GFR is the best measure of the kidneys' ability to filter blood. In addition, expressing the level of kidney function on a continuous scale allows development of patient and public education programs that encourage individuals to "Know your number!" The term "GFR" is not intuitively evident to anyone. Rather, it is a learned term, which allows the ultimate expression of the complex functions of the kidney in one single numerical expression. Conversely, numbers are an intuitive concept and easily understandable by everyone