Developing a core outcome set for fistulising perianal Crohn's disease

OBJECTIVE: Lack of standardised outcomes hampers effective analysis and comparison of data when comparing treatments in fistulising perianal Crohn's disease (pCD). Development of a standardised set of outcomes would resolve these issues. This study provides the definitive core outcome set (COS) for fistulising pCD. DESIGN: Candidate outcomes were generated through a systematic review and patient interviews. Consensus was established via a three-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on how important they felt it was in determining treatment success culminating in a final consensus meeting. Stakeholders were recruited nationally and grouped into three panels (surgeons and radiologists, gastroenterologists and IBD specialist nurses, and patients). Participants received feedback fromtheir panel(in the second round) andall participants(in the third round) to allow refinement of their scores. RESULTS: A total of 295 outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and interviews that were categorised into 92 domains. 187 stakeholders (response rate 78.5%) prioritised 49 outcomes through a three-round Delphi study.The final consensus meeting of 41 experts and patients generated agreement on an eight domain COS. The COS comprised three patient-reported outcome domains (quality of life, incontinence and a combined score of patient priorities) and five clinician-reported outcome domains (perianal disease activity, development of new perianal abscess/sepsis, new/recurrent fistula, unplanned surgery and faecal diversion). CONCLUSION: A fistulising pCD COS has been produced by all key stakeholders. Application of the COS will reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting, thereby facilitating more meaningful comparisons between treatments, data synthesis and ultimately benefit patient care

Developing a core outcome set for fistulising perianal Crohn's disease

Objective Lack of standardised outcomes hampers effective analysis and comparison of data when comparing treatments in fistulising perianal Crohn’s disease (pCD). Development of a standardised set of outcomes would resolve these issues. This study provides the definitive core outcome set (COS) for fistulising pCD. Design Candidate outcomes were generated through a systematic review and patient interviews. Consensus was established via a three-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on how important they felt it was in determining treatment success culminating in a final consensus meeting. Stakeholders were recruited nationally and grouped into three panels (surgeons and radiologists, gastroenterologists and IBD specialist nurses, and patients). Participants received feedback from their panel (in the second round) and all participants (in the third round) to allow refinement of their scores. Results A total of 295 outcomes were identified from systematic reviews and interviews that were categorised into 92 domains. 187 stakeholders (response rate 78.5%) prioritised 49 outcomes through a three-round Delphi study. The final consensus meeting of 41 experts and patients generated agreement on an eight domain COS. The COS comprised three patient-reported outcome domains (quality of life, incontinence and a combined score of patient priorities) and five clinician-reported outcome domains (perianal disease activity, development of new perianal abscess/sepsis, new/recurrent fistula, unplanned surgery and faecal diversion). Conclusion A fistulising pCD COS has been produced by all key stakeholders. Application of the COS will reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting, thereby facilitating more meaningful comparisons between treatments, data synthesis and ultimately benefit patient care

Understanding how colorectal units achieve short length of stay: an interview survey among representative hospitals in England

BACKGROUND: Wide variation in the outcomes of colorectal surgery persists, despite a well-established evidence-base to inform clinical practice. This variation may be attributed to differences in quality of care, but we do not know what this means in practical terms of care delivery. This telephone interview study aimed to identify distinguishing characteristics in the organisation of care among colorectal units with the best length of stay results in England. METHODS: Ten English National Health Service hospitals were identified with the shortest length of stay after elective colonic surgery between January 2011 and December 2012. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a senior colorectal surgeon and ward nurse, who were not informed of their performance, at each site. Audio recordings were professionally transcribed and thematically analysed for similarities and differences in practice between units. RESULTS: All ten short length of stay units approached agreed to participate, and 19 of 20 interviews were recorded. These units standardised clinical care based upon an Enhanced Recovery Program. Beyond this, they organised the clinical team to efficiently and reliably deliver this package of care, with the majority of day-to-day care delivered by consultants and nurses. Patients were closely monitored for postoperative deterioration, using a combination of early warning scores, nurses clinical judgement and regular senior medical review. Of note, operative volume and laparoscopy rates in these units were not statistically significantly different from the national average (p = 0.509 and p = 0.131, respectively). The postoperative analgesic strategy varied widely between units, from routine epidural use to local anaesthetic infiltration or patient-controlled analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: The Enhanced Recovery Program may be seen as necessary but not sufficient to achieve the best length of stay results. In the study units, consultants and nurses led and delivered the majority of patient care on the ward. High quality teamwork helped detect and resolve clinical issues promptly, with nurses empowered to contact consultants directly if needed. Other units may learn from these teams by adopting protocol-based, consultant- or nurse-delivered care, and by improving coordination and communication between consultants and ward nurses

Inequalities in implementation and different outcomes during the growth of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in England: A national population-based study from 2002 to 2012

Aim Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery has developed from unproven technique to mainstay of treatment. This study examined the application and relative outcomes of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery over time, as laparoscopic uptake and experience have grown. Methods Adults undergoing elective laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery in the English NHS during 2002–2012 were included. Age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Index of Multiple Deprivation were compared over time. Post-operative 30-day mortality, length of stay, failure to rescue reoperation and the associated mortality rate were examined. Results Laparoscopy rates rose from 1.1 to 50.8%. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had lower comorbidity by 0.24 points (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.20–0.27) and lower socioeconomic deprivation by 0.16 deciles (95% CI 0.12–0.20) than those having open procedures. Overall mortality fell by 48.0% from 2002–2003 to 2011–2002 and was 37.8% lower after laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay and mortality after surgical re-intervention also fell. However, re-intervention rates were higher after laparoscopic procedures by 7.8% (95% CI 0.9–15.2%). Conclusions There was clear and persistent inequality in the application of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery during this study. Further work must explore and remedy inequalities to maximise patient benefit. Higher reintervention rates after laparoscopy are unexplained and differ from randomized controlled trials. This may reflect differences in surgeons and practice between research and usual care settings and should be further investigated.</p

Inequalities in implementation and different outcomes during the growth of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in England: A national population-based study from 2002 to 2012

Aim Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery has developed from unproven technique to mainstay of treatment. This study examined the application and relative outcomes of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery over time, as laparoscopic uptake and experience have grown. Methods Adults undergoing elective laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery in the English NHS during 2002–2012 were included. Age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Index of Multiple Deprivation were compared over time. Post-operative 30-day mortality, length of stay, failure to rescue reoperation and the associated mortality rate were examined. Results Laparoscopy rates rose from 1.1 to 50.8%. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had lower comorbidity by 0.24 points (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.20–0.27) and lower socioeconomic deprivation by 0.16 deciles (95% CI 0.12–0.20) than those having open procedures. Overall mortality fell by 48.0% from 2002–2003 to 2011–2002 and was 37.8% lower after laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay and mortality after surgical re-intervention also fell. However, re-intervention rates were higher after laparoscopic procedures by 7.8% (95% CI 0.9–15.2%). Conclusions There was clear and persistent inequality in the application of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery during this study. Further work must explore and remedy inequalities to maximise patient benefit. Higher reintervention rates after laparoscopy are unexplained and differ from randomized controlled trials. This may reflect differences in surgeons and practice between research and usual care settings and should be further investigated.</p

Do patients with gastrointestinal cancer want to decide where they have tests and surgery? A questionnaire study of provider choice.

BACKGROUNDS: Choice of provider has been an important strategy among policy makers, intended, in part, to drive improvements in quality and efficiency of healthcare. This study examined the information requirements, and decision-making experiences and preferences of patients who have had surgery for gastrointestinal cancer, to assess the status of provider choice in current practice. METHODS: The single-item Control Preferences Scale was used to determine patients' experiences and preferences when being referred for tests, and choosing where to have surgery. Participants used a Likert scale to rate the importance of 23 information items covering a variety of structures, processes and outcomes at the hospital level and the department level. Participants were recruited by post and online. RESULTS: 463 responses were analysed. Patients reported very low levels of involvement in provider choice, with their doctor deciding where they underwent tests or surgery in 77.0% and 81.8% of cases, respectively. Over two-thirds of participants would have preferred greater involvement in provider choice than they experienced. Of note, patient age and education were not associated with reported preferences. Information on how long patients with cancer wait for treatment, annual operative volume and postoperative mortality rate, as well as retained foreign bodies and infection rates were considered very important. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial unmet desire for greater involvement in provider choice among study participants. Respondents attached particular importance to surgery-specific information. Efforts should be made to increase involvement of patients with gastrointestinal cancer in provider decisions, across primary and secondary care, to deliver more patient-centred care. The reported lack of patient involvement in provider choice suggests it is unlikely to be working as an effective lever to drive quality improvement at present

Outlier identification in colorectal surgery should separate elective and nonelective service components.

BACKGROUND: The identification of health care institutions with outlying outcomes is of great importance for reporting health care results and for quality improvement. Historically, elective surgical outcomes have received greater attention than nonelective results, although some studies have examined both. Differences in outlier identification between these patient groups have not been adequately explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the identification of institutional outliers for mortality after elective and nonelective colorectal resection in England. DESIGN: This was a cohort study using routine administrative data. Ninety-day mortality was determined by using statutory records of death. Adjusted Trust-level mortality rates were calculated by using multiple logistic regression. High and low mortality outliers were identified and compared across funnel plots for elective and nonelective surgery. SETTINGS: All English National Health Service Trusts providing colorectal surgery to an unrestricted patient population were studied. PATIENTS: Adults admitted for colorectal surgery between April 2006 and March 2012 were included. INTERVENTION(S): Segmental colonic or rectal resection was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Included were 195,118 patients, treated at 147 Trusts. Ninety-day mortality rates after elective and nonelective surgery were 4% and 18%. No unit with high outlying mortality for elective surgery was a high outlier for nonelective mortality and vice versa. Trust level, observed-to-expected mortality for elective and nonelective surgery, was moderately correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.50, p< 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study relied on administrative data and may be limited by potential flaws in the quality of coding of clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: Status as an institutional mortality outlier after elective and nonelective colorectal surgery was not closely related. Therefore, mortality rates should be reported for both patient cohorts separately. This would provide a broad picture of the state of colorectal services and help direct research and quality improvement activities

Outlier identification in colorectal surgery should separate elective and nonelective service components.

BACKGROUND: The identification of health care institutions with outlying outcomes is of great importance for reporting health care results and for quality improvement. Historically, elective surgical outcomes have received greater attention than nonelective results, although some studies have examined both. Differences in outlier identification between these patient groups have not been adequately explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the identification of institutional outliers for mortality after elective and nonelective colorectal resection in England. DESIGN: This was a cohort study using routine administrative data. Ninety-day mortality was determined by using statutory records of death. Adjusted Trust-level mortality rates were calculated by using multiple logistic regression. High and low mortality outliers were identified and compared across funnel plots for elective and nonelective surgery. SETTINGS: All English National Health Service Trusts providing colorectal surgery to an unrestricted patient population were studied. PATIENTS: Adults admitted for colorectal surgery between April 2006 and March 2012 were included. INTERVENTION(S): Segmental colonic or rectal resection was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Included were 195,118 patients, treated at 147 Trusts. Ninety-day mortality rates after elective and nonelective surgery were 4% and 18%. No unit with high outlying mortality for elective surgery was a high outlier for nonelective mortality and vice versa. Trust level, observed-to-expected mortality for elective and nonelective surgery, was moderately correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.50, p&lt; 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study relied on administrative data and may be limited by potential flaws in the quality of coding of clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: Status as an institutional mortality outlier after elective and nonelective colorectal surgery was not closely related. Therefore, mortality rates should be reported for both patient cohorts separately. This would provide a broad picture of the state of colorectal services and help direct research and quality improvement activities