Early In-Hospital Mortality following Trainee Doctors' First Day at Work

BACKGROUND:There is a commonly held assumption that early August is an unsafe period to be admitted to hospital in England, as newly qualified doctors start work in NHS hospitals on the first Wednesday of August. We investigate whether in-hospital mortality is higher in the week following the first Wednesday in August than in the previous week. METHODOLOGY:A retrospective study in England using administrative hospital admissions data. Two retrospective cohorts of all emergency patients admitted on the last Wednesday in July and the first Wednesday in August for 2000 to 2008, each followed up for one week. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:The odds of death for patients admitted on the first Wednesday in August was 6% higher (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15, p=0.05) after controlling for year, gender, age, socio-economic deprivation and co-morbidity. When subdivided into medical, surgical and neoplasm admissions, medical admissions admitted on the first Wednesday in August had an 8% (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16, p=0.03) higher odds of death. In 2007 and 2008, when the system for junior doctors' job applications changed, patients admitted on Wednesday August 1(st) had 8% higher adjusted odds of death than those admitted the previous Wednesday, but this was not statistically significant (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23, p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS:We found evidence that patients admitted on the first Wednesday in August have a higher early death rate in English hospitals compared with patients admitted on the previous Wednesday. This was higher for patients admitted with a medical primary diagnosis

Adoption of an innovation to repair aortic aneurysms at a Canadian hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Priority setting in health care is a challenge because demand for services exceeds available resources. The increasing demand for less invasive surgical procedures by patients, health care institutions and industry, places added pressure on surgeons to acquire the appropriate skills to adopt innovative procedures. Such innovations are often initiated and introduced by surgeons in the hospital setting. Decision-making processes for the adoption of surgical innovations in hospitals have not been well studied and a standard process for their introduction does not exist. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the decision-making process for the adoption of a new technology for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) in an academic health sciences centre to better understand how decisions are made for the introduction of surgical innovations at the hospital level.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative case study of the decision to adopt EVAR was conducted using a modified thematic analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews. Accountability for Reasonableness was used as a conceptual framework for fairness in priority setting processes in health care organizations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were two key decisions regarding EVAR: the decision to adopt the new technology in the hospital and the decision to stop hospital funding. The decision to adopt EVAR was based on perceived improved patient outcomes, safety, and the surgeons' desire to innovate. This decision involved very few stakeholders. The decision to stop funding of EVAR involved all key players and was based on criteria apparent to all those involved, including cost, evidence and hospital priorities. Limited internal communications were made prior to adopting the technology. There was no formal means to appeal the decisions made.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The analysis yielded recommendations for improving future decisions about the adoption of surgical innovations. ese empirical findings will be used with other case studies to help develop guidelines to help decision-makers adopt surgical innovations in Canadian hospitals.</p

Task shifting in surgery: Lessons from an Indian Heart Hospital

We present a case study that illustrates task shifting, the transfer of activities from senior to junior colleagues, in the context of cardiac surgery at the Narayana Health City Cardiac Hospital (NH) in India. The case discusses the factors driving the adoption of task shifting at NH and identifies the implications of task shifting for surgeon training, surgical capacity, and procedure costs. A comparison of the outcomes of two senior surgeons with similar experience, workload, and patient profiles--but varying in their level of task shifting--suggests that shifting of lower complexity tasks by senior surgeons to trained junior colleagues does not negatively impact in-hospital mortality and post-procedure length of stay. The study concludes with a discussion of task shifting's potential to improve access to affordable tertiary care in resource-constrained settings