Surgical adverse outcome reporting as part of routine clinical care

Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Moving beyond the weekend effect: how can we best target interventions to improve patient care?

Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Identifying adverse events: reflections on an imperfect gold standard after 20 years of patient safety research

Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Evaluation of routinely reported surgical site infections against microbiological culture results: a tool to identify patient groups where diagnosis and treatment may be improved

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surgeons may improve their decision making by assessing the extent to which their initial clinical diagnosis of a surgical site infection (SSI) was supported by culture results. Aim of the present study was to evaluate routinely reported SSI by surgeons against microbiological culture results, to identify patient groups with lower agreement where decision making may be improved.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>701 admissions with SSI were reported by surgeons in a university medical centre in the period 1997-2005, which were retrospectively checked for microbiological culture results. Reporting a SSI was conditional on treatment being given (e.g. antibiotics) and was classified by severity. To identify specific patient groups, patients were classified according to the surgery group of the first operation during admission (e.g. trauma).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of all reported SSI, 523 (74.6%) had a positive culture result, 102 (14.6%) a negative culture result and 76 (10.8%) were classified as unknown culture result (due to no culture taken). Given a known culture result, reported SSI with positive culture results less often concerned trauma patients (16% versus 26%, X²= 4.99 p = 0.03) and less severe SSI (49% versus 85%, X²= 10.11 p < 0.01) suggesting that a more conservative approach may be warranted in these patients. The trauma surgeons themselves perceived to have become too liberal in administering antibiotics (and reporting SSI).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Routine reporting of SSI was mostly supported by culture results. However, this support was less often found in trauma patients and less severe SSI, thereby giving surgeons feedback that diagnosis and treatment may be improved in these cases.</p

Reliability of Self-reported Treatment Data by Patients With Breast Cancer Compared With Medical Record Data

Surgical oncolog

Population-based 10-year cumulative revision risks after hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis to inform patients in clinical practice: a competing risk analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose - A lifetime perspective on revision risks is needed for optimal timing of arthroplasty in osteoarthritis (OA) patients, weighing the benefit of total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) against the risk of revision, after which outcomes are less favorable. Therefore, we provide population-based 10-year cumulative revision risks stratified by joint, sex, fixation type, and age.Patients and methods - Data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) was used. Primary THAs and TKAs for OA between 2007 and 2018 were included, except metal-on-metal prostheses or hybrid/reversed hybrid fixation. Revision surgery was defined as any change of 1 or more prosthesis components. The 10-year cumulative revision risks were calculated stratified by joint, age, sex, at primary arthroplasty, and fixation type (cemented/uncemented), taking into account mortality as a competing risk. We estimated the percentage of potentially avoidable revisions assuming all OA patients aged < 75 received primary THA/TKA 5 years later while keeping age-specific 10-year revision risks constant.Results - 214,638 primary THAs and 211,099 TKAs were included, of which 31% of THAs and 95% of TKAs were cemented. The 10-year cumulative revision risk varied between 1.6% and 13%, with higher risks in younger age categories. Delaying prosthesis placement by 5 years could potentially avoid 23 (3%) THA and 162 (17%) TKA revisions.Interpretation - Cumulative 10- year revision risk varied considerably by age in both fixation groups, which may be communicated to patients and used to guide timing of surgery.Clinical epidemiolog

The reliability of revision rates following primary shoulder arthroplasty as a quality indicator to rank hospital performance: a national registry analysis including 13,104 shoulders and 87 hospitals

Background: To assess the extent of between-hospital variation in revision following primary shoulder arthroplasty (SA), both overall and for specific revision indications to guide quality improvement initiatives, and to assess whether revision rates are suitable as quality indicators to reliably rank hospital performance. Methods: All primary SAs performed between 2014 and 2018 were included from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register to examine 1-year revision and all primary SAs performed between 2014 and 2016 for 1-and 3-year revisions. For each hospital, the observed number (O) of revisions was compared with that expected (E) based on case-mix and depicted in funnel plots with 95% control limits to identify outlier hospitals. The rankability (ie, the reliability of ranking hospitals) was calculated as the percentage of total hospital variation due to true between-hospital differences rather than chance and categorized as low ( 75%). Results: A total of 13,104 primary SAs (87 hospitals) in 2014-2018 were included, of which 7213 were performed between 2014 and 2016. Considerable between-hospital variation was found in 1-year revision in 2014-2016 (median 1.6%, interquartile range 0.0%-3.1%), identifying 3 outlier hospitals having overall significantly more revisions than expected (O/E range 1.9-2.3) and for specific in-dications (cuff pathology and infection). Results for 2014-2018 were similar. For 3-year revision, 3 outlier hospitals were identified (O/E range 1.7-3.3). Rankabilities for all outcomes were low. Conclusions: Considerable between-hospital variation was observed for 1-and 3-year revision rates following primary SA, where outlier hospitals could be identified based on large differences in revision for specific indications to direct quality improvement initiatives. However, rankabilities were low, meaning that much of the other (smaller) variation in performance could not be detected, rendering revisions unsuitable to rank hospital performances following primary SA.(C) 2022 The Author(s).Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio

Decision making around living and deceased donor kidney transplantation: a qualitative study exploring the importance of expected relationship changes

Transplant surger