Effect of public reporting of surgeons' outcomes on patient selection, "gaming," and mortality in colorectal cancer surgery in England: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of surgeon specific outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery on risk averse clinical practice, "gaming" of clinical data, and 90 day postoperative mortality. DESIGN: National cohort study. SETTING: English National Health Service hospital trusts. POPULATION: 111 431 patients diagnosed as having colorectal cancer from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2015 included in the National Bowel Cancer Audit. INTERVENTION: Public reporting of surgeon specific 90 day mortality in elective colorectal cancer surgery in England introduced in June 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients with colorectal cancer who had an elective major resection, predicted 90 day mortality based on characteristics of patients and tumours, and observed 90 day mortality adjusted for differences in characteristics of patients and tumours, comparing patients who had surgery between April 2011 and June 2013 and between July 2013 and March 2015. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with colorectal cancer undergoing major resection did not change after the introduction of surgeon specific public outcome reporting (39 792/62 854 (63.3%) before versus 30 706/48 577 (63.2%) after; P=0.8). The proportion of these major resections categorised as elective or scheduled also did not change (33 638/39 792 (84.5%) before versus 25 905/30 706 (84.4%) after; P=0.5). The predicted 90 day mortality remained the same (2.7% v 2.7%; P=0.3), but the observed 90 day mortality fell (952/33 638 (2.8%) v 552/25 905 (2.1%)). Change point analysis showed that this reduction was over and above the existing downward trend in mortality before the introduction of public outcome reporting (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find evidence that the introduction of public reporting of surgeon specific 90 day postoperative mortality in elective colorectal cancer surgery has led to risk averse clinical practice behaviour or "gaming" of data. However, its introduction coincided with a significant reduction in 90 day mortality

The impact of the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer services in England and Wales: A national survey.

AIM: The object of this work was to study how National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales aimed to maintain effective and safe colorectal cancer (CRC) services during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020). METHOD: A national survey was performed among all 148 hospitals providing CRC services. Information was collected about changes in referrals, diagnostic, staging and therapeutic procedures, as well as whether there was access to a 'cold site' (a hospital facility free of COVID-19). Clinicians in each hospital were also asked to give the 'single most important lesson learned' about keeping services safe and effective. RESULTS: Full responses were received from 123 (83%) hospitals, and information about 'cold sites' was available for 146 (99%). Eighty hospitals (54%) had access to a 'cold site' and this was increased in regions with higher COVID-19 infection rates (p <0.001). Of the 123 responding hospitals, 105 (85%) indicated that referrals of patients with suspected CRC had dropped by at least 30%, and 69 (56%) indicated that treatment plans were altered in at least 50% of CRC patients. However, 'cold site' availability protected the capacity for diagnostic colonoscopy (p = 0.013) and CRC resection (p = 0.010). Many 'lessons learned' highlighted the importance of adequate structural service organization, often mentioning 'cold sites' and regional coordination as examples, good communication and triage of patients based on clinical urgency. CONCLUSION: Access to 'cold sites', as well as regional coordination, clear communication and strong leadership, were found to be pivotal in maintaining capacity for diagnosis and treatment of CRC during the COVID-19 surge

Surgical Treatment and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Population-based Study in England.

To compare the management and outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with the preceding 6 months. BACKGROUND: The pandemic has affected the diagnosis and treatment of CRC patients worldwide. Little is known about the safety of major resection and whether creating "cold" sites (COVID-free hospitals) is effective. METHODS: A national study in England used administrative hospital data for 14,930 CRC patients undergoing surgery between October 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020. Mortality of CRC resection was compared before and after March 23, 2020 ("lockdown" start). RESULTS: The number of elective CRC procedures dropped sharply during the pandemic (from average 386 to 214 per week), whereas emergency procedures were hardly affected (from 88 to 84 per week). There was little change in characteristics of surgical patients during the pandemic. Laparoscopic surgery decreased from 62.5% to 35.9% for elective and from 17.7% to 9.7% for emergency resections. Surgical mortality increased slightly (from 0.9% to 1.2%, P = 0.06) after elective and markedly (from 5.6% to 8.9%, P = 0.003) after emergency resections. The observed increase in mortality during the first phase of the pandemic was similar in "cold" and "hot" sites (P > 0.5 elective and emergency procedures). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic resulted in a 50% reduction in elective CRC procedures during the initial surge and a substantial increase in mortality after emergency resection. There was no evidence that surgery in COVID-free "cold" sites led to better outcomes in the first 2 months

Survival outcomes associated with completion of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: A national population-based study.

The impact of cycle completion rates of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer in real-world practice is unknown. We assessed its impact, and that of treatment modification, on 3-year cancer-specific mortality. Four thousand one hundred and forty-seven patients with pathological stage III colon cancer undergoing major resection from 2014 to 2017 in the English National Health Service were included. Chemotherapy data came from linked national administrative datasets. Competing risk regression analysis for 3-year cancer-specific mortality was performed according to completion of <6, 6-11, or 12 5-fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) cycles, or <4, 4-7, or 8 capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) cycles, adjusted for patient, tumour and hospital-level characteristics. Median age was 64 years. Thirty-two per cent of patients had at least one comorbidity. Forty-two per cent of patients had T4 disease, and 40% had N2 disease. Compared to completion of 12 FOLFOX cycles, cancer-specific mortality was higher in patients completing <6 cycles [subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) 2.17; 95% CI 1.56-3.03] or 6-11 cycles (sHR 1.40; 95% CI 1.09-1.78) (P < .001). Compared to completion of 8 CAPOX cycles, cancer-specific mortality was higher in patients completing <4 cycles (sHR 2.02; 95% CI 1.53-2.67) or 4-7 cycles (sHR 1.63; 95% CI 1.27-2.10) (P < .001). Dose reduction and early oxaliplatin discontinuation did not impact mortality in patients completing all cycles. Completion of all cycles of chemotherapy was associated with improved cancer-specific survival in real-world practice. Poor prognostic factors may have affected findings, however, patients completing <50% of cycles had poor outcomes. Clinicians may wish to facilitate completion with treatment modification in those able to tolerate it

Association of Quality and Technology With Patient Mobility for Colorectal Cancer Surgery.

IMPORTANCE: Many health care systems publish hospital-level quality measures as a driver of hospital performance and to support patient choice, but it is not known if patients with cancer respond to them. OBJECTIVE: To investigate hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This choice modeling study used national administrative hospital data. Patients with colon and rectal cancer treated in all 163 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals delivering colorectal cancer surgery between April 2016 and March 2019 were included. The extent to which patients chose to bypass their nearest surgery center was investigated, and conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association of additional travel time, hospital quality measures, and patient characteristics with treatment location. EXPOSURES: Additional travel time in minutes, hospital characteristics, and patient characteristics: age, sex, cancer T stage, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and rural or urban residence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Treatment location. RESULTS: Overall, 44 299 patients were included in the final cohort (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [11.6] years; 18 829 [42.5%] female). A total of 8550 of 31 258 patients with colon cancer (27.4%) and 3933 of 13 041 patients with rectal cancer (30.2%) bypassed their nearest surgical center. Travel time was strongly associated with treatment location. The association was less strong for younger, more affluent patients and those from rural areas. For rectal cancer, patients were more likely to travel to a hospital designated as a specialist colorectal cancer surgery center (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87; P = .004) and to a hospital performing robotic surgery for rectal cancer (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.86; P = .007). Patients were less likely to travel to hospitals deemed to have inadequate care by the national quality regulator (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97; P = .03). Patients were not more likely to travel to hospitals with better 2-year bowel cancer mortality outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients appear responsive to hospital characteristics that reflect overall hospital quality and the availability of robotic surgery but not to specific disease-related outcome measures. Policies allowing patients to choose where they have colorectal cancer surgery may not result in better outcomes but could drive inequities in the health care system

Development and validation of a coding framework to identify severe acute toxicity from systemic anti-cancer therapy using hospital administrative data

BACKGROUND: The capture of toxicities from systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) in real-world data will complement results from clinical trials. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a comprehensive coding framework to identify severe acute toxicity in hospital administrative data. METHODS: A coding framework was developed to identify diagnostic codes representing severe acute toxicity in hospital administrative data. The coding framework was validated on a sample of 23,265 colon cancer patients treated in the English National Health Service between 1 June 2014 and 31 December 2017. This involved comparing individual toxicities according to the receipt of SACT and according to different SACT regimens, as well as assessing the associations of predictive factors and outcomes with toxicity. RESULTS: The severe acute toxicities captured by the developed coding framework were shown to vary across clinical groups with an overall rate of 26.4% in the adjuvant cohort, 53.4% in the metastatic cohort, and 12.5% in the comparison group receiving no chemotherapy. Results were in line with regimen-specific findings from clinical trials. For example, patients receiving additional bevacizumab had higher rates of bleeding (12.5% vs. 2.7%), gastrointestinal perforation (5.6% vs. 2.9%) and fistulation (1.4% vs. 0.5%), and allergic drug reactions (1.4% vs. 0.5%). Severe acute toxicity was associated with pre-existing renal (p = 0.001) and cardiac disease (p = 0.038), and urgency of surgery (p = 0.004). Severe toxicity also predicted lower rates of completion of chemotherapy (p = <0.001) and an increased likelihood of altered administration route (p = <0.001). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that the developed coding framework captures severe acute toxicities from hospital administrative data of colon cancer patients. A similar approach can be used for patients with other cancer types, receiving different regimens. Toxicity captured in administrative data can be used to compare treatment outcomes, inform clinical decision making, and provide opportunities for benchmarking and provider performance monitoring

What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?

AIM: Evidence for a positive volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship for rectal cancer surgery at hospital and surgeon level in the English National Health Service (NHS). METHOD: All patients undergoing a rectal cancer resection in the English NHS between 2015 and 2019 were included. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression was used to model relationships between outcomes and mean annual hospital and surgeon volumes (using a linear plus a quadratic term for volume) with adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 13 858 patients treated in 166 hospitals were included. Six hospitals (3.6%) performed fewer than 10 rectal cancer resections per year, and 381 surgeons (45.0%) performed fewer than five such resections per year. Patients treated by high-volume surgeons had a reduced length of stay (p = 0.016). No statistically significant volume-outcome relationships were demonstrated for 90-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission, unplanned return to theatre, stoma at 18 months following anterior resection, positive circumferential resection margin and 2-year all-cause mortality at either hospital or surgeon level (p values > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Almost half of colorectal surgeons in England do not meet national guidelines for rectal cancer surgeons to perform a minimum of five major resections annually. However, our results suggest that centralizing rectal cancer surgery with the main focus of increasing operative volume may have limited impact on NHS surgical outcomes. Therefore, quality improvement initiatives should address a wider range of evidence-based process measures, across the multidisciplinary care pathway, to enhance outcomes for patients with rectal cancer

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation.

AIM: To date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality. METHODS: All colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included. Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging. RESULTS: Eight thousand one hundred and seventy three patients received SACT in the adjuvant setting, and 7,683 patients in the metastatic setting. Adjusted severe acute toxicity rates varied between hospitals from 11% to 49% for the adjuvant cohort, and from 25% to 67% for the metastatic cohort. Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than two standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. In the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate. Overall, 12 hospitals (12%) had toxicity rates more than 2SD above the national mean, and 11 (10%) had rates more than 2SD below. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to improve care

Patients Undergoing Ileoanal Pouch Surgery Experience a Constellation of Symptoms and Consequences Representing a Unique Syndrome: A Report from the Patient-Reported Outcomes After Pouch Surgery (PROPS) Delphi Consensus Study

Functional outcomes after ileoanal pouch creation have been studied; however, there is great variability in how relevant outcomes are defined and reported. More importantly, the perspective of patients has not been represented in deciding which outcomes should be the focus of research.The primary aim was to create a patient-centered definition of core symptoms that should be included in future studies of pouch function.This was a Delphi consensus study.Three rounds of surveys were used to select high-priority items. Survey voting was followed by a series of online patient consultation meetings used to clarify voting trends. A final online consensus meeting with representation from all 3 expert panels was held to finalize a consensus statement.Expert stakeholders were chosen to correlate with the clinical scenario of the multidisciplinary team that cares for pouch patients, including patients, colorectal surgeons, and gastroenterologists or other clinicians.A consensus statement was the main outcome.patients, 62 colorectal surgeons, and 48 gastroenterologists or nurse specialists completed all 3 Delphi rounds. Fifty-three patients participated in online focus groups. One hundred sixty-one stakeholders participated in the final consensus meeting. On conclusion of the consensus meeting, 7 bowel symptoms and 7 consequences of undergoing ileoanal pouch surgery were included in the final consensus statement.The study was limited by online recruitment bias.This study is the first to identify key functional outcomes after pouch surgery with direct input from a large panel of ileoanal pouch patients. The inclusion of patients in all stages of the consensus process allowed for a true patient-centered approach in defining the core domains that should be focused on in future studies of pouch function. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571.Un Informe de los Resultados Reportados por los Pacientes Posterior a la Cirugía de Reservorio (PROPS) Estudio de Consenso DelphiANTECEDENTES:Los resultados funcionales después de la creación del reservorio ileoanal han sido estudiados; sin embargo, existe una gran variabilidad en la forma en que se definen y reportan los resultados relevantes. Más importante aún, la perspectiva de los pacientes no se ha representado a la hora de decidir qué resultados deberían ser el foco de investigación.OBJETIVO:El objetivo principal era crear en el paciente una definición centrada de los síntomas principales que debería incluirse en los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio.DISEÑO:Estudio de consenso Delphi.ENTORNO CLINICO:Se emplearon tres rondas de encuestas para seleccionar elementos de alta prioridad. La votación de la encuesta fue seguida por una serie de reuniones de consulta de pacientes en línea que se utilizan para aclarar las tendencias de votación. Se realizo una reunión de consenso final en línea con representación de los tres paneles de expertos para finalizar una declaración de consenso.PACIENTES:Se eligieron partes interesadas expertas para correlacionar con el escenario clínico del equipo multidisciplinario que atiende a los pacientes con reservorio: pacientes, cirujanos colorrectales, gastroenterólogos / otros médicos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Declaración de consenso.RESULTADOS:Ciento noventa y cinco pacientes, 62 cirujanos colorrectales y 48 gastroenterólogos / enfermeras especialistas completaron las tres rondas Delphi. 53 pacientes participaron en grupos focales en línea. 161 interesados participaron en la reunión de consenso final. Al concluir la reunión de consenso, siete síntomas intestinales y siete consecuencias de someterse a una cirugía de reservorio ileoanal se incluyeron en la declaración de consenso final.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo de reclutamiento en línea.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio es el primero en identificar resultados funcionales claves después de la cirugía de reservorio con información directa de un gran panel de pacientes con reservorio ileoanal. La inclusión de pacientes en todas las etapas del proceso de consenso permitió un verdadero enfoque centrado en el paciente para definir los dominios principales en los que debería centrarse los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571

Patients Undergoing Ileoanal Pouch Surgery Experience a Constellation of Symptoms and Consequences Representing a Unique Syndrome: A Report From the Patient-Reported Outcomes After Pouch Surgery (PROPS) Delphi Consensus Study

The primary aim was to create a patient-centered definition of core symptoms that should be included in future studies of pouch function.Functional outcomes after ileoanal pouch creation have been studied; however, there is great variability in how relevant outcomes are defined and reported. More importantly, the perspective of patients has not been represented in deciding which outcomes should be the focus of research.Expert stakeholders were chosen to correlate with the clinical scenario of the multidisciplinary team that cares for pouch patients: patients, colorectal surgeons, gastroenterologists/other clinicians. Three rounds of surveys were employed to select high-priority items. Survey voting was followed by a series of online patient consultation meetings used to clarify voting trends. A final online consensus meeting with representation from all 3 expert panels was held to finalize a consensus statement.One hundred ninety-five patients, 62 colorectal surgeons, and 48 gastroenterologists/nurse specialists completed all 3 Delphi rounds. Fifty-three patients participated in online focus groups. One hundred sixty-one stakeholders participated in the final consensus meeting. On conclusion of the consensus meeting, 7 bowel symptoms and 7 consequences of undergoing ileoanal pouch surgery were included in the final consensus statement.This study is the first to identify key functional outcomes after pouch surgery with direct input from a large panel of ileoanal pouch patients. The inclusion of patients in all stages of the consensus process allowed for a true patient-centered approach in defining the core domains that should be focused on in future studies of pouch function