27 research outputs found

    Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

    Tension Pneumoperitoneum

    No full text

    The impact of major intraoperative adverse events on hospital readmissions

    No full text
    Hospital-wide readmission rates recently became a recognized benchmarking quality metric. We sought to study the independent impact of major intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) on 30-day readmission in abdominal surgery. The 2007 to 2012 institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and administrative databases for abdominal operations were matched then screened for iAEs using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification–based Patient Safety Indicator “Accidental Puncture/Laceration”. Flagged charts were reviewed to confirm the presence of iAEs. Major iAEs were defined as class 3 or above, as per our recently validated iAE Classification System. The inpatient database was queried for readmission within 30 days from discharge. Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to analyze the independent impact of major iAEs on readmission, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiology class, and procedure type/approach/complexity (using relative value units as proxy). Reasons for readmission were investigated using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification–based Clinical Classification Software. Of 9,274 surgical procedures; 921 resulted in readmission (9.9%), 183 had confirmed iAEs, 73 of which were major iAEs. Procedures with major iAEs had a higher readmission rate compared with procedures with no iAEs [24.7% vs 9.8%, P < .001]. In multivariable analyses, major iAEs were independently associated with a 2-fold increase in readmission rates [OR = 2.17 (95% CI = 1.22 to 3.86); P = .008]; 67% of readmissions after major iAEs were caused by “complications of surgical procedures or medical care” as defined by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Major iAEs are independently associated with increased rates of 30-day readmission. Preventing iAEs or mitigating their effects can serve as a quality improvement target to decrease surgical readmissions. •Patients experiencing major intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital.•Major iAEs are independently associated with a 2-fold increase in readmissions.•Prevention of major iAEs should be a target for surgical quality improvement efforts

    Opening Pandora's box: understanding the nature, patterns, and 30-day outcomes of intraoperative adverse events

    No full text
    Little evidence exists regarding the characteristics of intraoperative adverse events (iAEs). Administrative data, the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Project, and systematic review of operative reports were used to confirm iAEs in abdominal surgery patients. Standard American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data were supplemented with variables including injury type/organ, phase of operation, adhesions, repair type, and intraoperative consultations. Two hundred twenty-seven iAEs (187 patients) were confirmed in 9,292 patients. Most common injuries were enterotomies during intestinal surgery (68%) and vessel injuries during hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery (61%); 108 iAEs (48%) specifically occurred during adhesiolysis. A third of the iAEs required organ/tissue resection or complex reconstruction. Because of iAEs, 20 intraoperative consults (11%) were requested and 9 of the 66 (16%) laparoscopic cases were converted to open. Thirty-day mortality and morbidity were 6% and 58%, respectively. The complications included perioperative transfusions (36%), surgical site infection (19%), systemic sepsis (13%), and failure to wean off the ventilator (12%). iAEs commonly occur in reoperative cases requiring lysis of adhesions and possibly lead to increased patient morbidity. Understanding iAEs is essential to prevent their occurrence and mitigate their adverse effects

    Treatment and outcomes of anticoagulated geriatric trauma patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage after falls

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Emergency physicians and trauma surgeons are increasingly confronted with pre-injury direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The objective of this study was to assess if pre-injury DOACs, compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or no oral anticoagulants is independently associated with differences in treatment, mortality and inpatient rehabilitation requirement. Methods: We performed a review of the prospectively maintained institutional trauma registry at an urban academic level 1 trauma center. We included all geriatric patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with tICH after a fall, admitted between January 2011 and December 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analysis controlling for demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, and tICH types were performed to identify the association between pre-injury anticoagulants and reversal agent use, neurosurgical interventions, inhospital mortality, 3-day mortality, and discharge to inpatient rehabilitation. Results: A total of 1453 tICH patients were included (52 DOAC, 376 VKA, 1025 control). DOAC use was independently associated with lower odds of receiving specific reversal agents [odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15–0.54] than VKA patients. DOAC use was independently associated with requiring neurosurgical intervention (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.36–7.28). VKA use, but not DOAC use, was independently associated with inhospital mortality, or discharge to hospice care (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15–2.27) compared to controls. VKA use was independently associated with higher odds of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06–1.87) compared to controls. Conclusion: Despite the higher neurosurgical intervention rates, patients with pre-injury DOAC use were associated with comparable rates of mortality and discharge to inpatient rehabilitation as patients without anticoagulation exposure. Future research should focus on risk assessment and stratification of DOAC-exposed trauma patients

    Derivation and validation of a practical Bedside Score for the diagnosis of cholecystitis

    No full text
    We sought to develop a practical Bedside Score for the diagnosis of cholecystitis and test its accuracy against the Tokyo Guidelines (TG13). We conducted a retrospective study of 438 patients undergoing urban, academic Emergency Department (ED) evaluation of RUQ pain. Symptoms, physical signs, ultrasound signs, and labs were scoring system candidates. A random split-sample approach was used to develop and validate a new clinical score. Multivariable regression analysis using development data was conducted to identify predictors of cholecystitis. Cutoff values were chosen to ensure positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of at least 0.95. The score was externally validated in 80 patients at a different hospital undergoing RUQ pain evaluation. 230 patients (53%) had cholecystitis. Five variables predicted cholecystitis and were included in the scores: gallstones, gallbladder thickening, clinical or ultrasonographic Murphy's sign, RUQ tenderness, and post-prandial symptoms. A clinical prediction score was developed. When dichotomized at 4, overall accuracy for acute cholecystitis was 90% for the development cohort, 82% and 86% for the internal and external validation cohorts; TG13 accuracy was 62%–79%. A clinical prediction score for cholecystitis demonstrates accuracy equivalent to TG13. Use of this score may streamline work-up by decreasing the need for comprehensive ultrasound evaluation and CRP measurement and may shorten ED length of stay
    corecore