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

Determinants of extended door-to-needle time in acute ischemic stroke and its influence on in-hospital mortality:results of a nationwide Dutch clinical audit

Background Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) plays a prominent role in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The sooner IVT is administered, the higher the odds of a good outcome. Therefore, registering the in-hospital time to treatment with IVT, i.e. the door-to-needle time (DNT), is a powerful way to measure quality improvement. The aim of this study was to identify determinants that are associated with extended DNT. Methods Patients receiving IVT in 2015 and 2016 registered in the Dutch Acute Stroke Audit were included. DNT and onset-to-door time (ODT) were dichotomized using the median (i.e. extended DNT) and the 90th percentile (i.e. severely extended DNT). Logistic regression was performed to identify determinants associated with (severely) extended DNT/ODT and its effect on in-hospital mortality. A linear model with natural spline was used to investigate the association between ODT and DNT. Results Included were 9518 IVT treated patients from 75 hospitals. Median DNT was 26 min (IQR 20-37). Determinants associated with a higher likelihood of extended DNT were female sex (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.31) and admission during off-hours (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25). Short ODT correlated with longer DNT, whereas longer ODT correlated with shorter DNT. Young age (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.07-1.76) and admission to a comprehensive stroke center (OR 1.26, 1.10-1.45) were associated with severely extended DNT, which was associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.19-1.98). Conclusions Even though DNT in the Netherlands is short compared to other countries, lowering the DNT may be achievable by focusing on specific subgroups

Is the readmission rate a valid quality indicator? A review of the evidence

Conclusions: Although readmission rates are a promising quality indicator, several methodological concerns identified in this study need to be addressed, especially when the indi

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

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the impact of living kidney donation on the donor-recipient relationship. Purpose of this study was to explore motivations to donate or accept a (living donor) kidney, whether expected relationship changes influence decision making and whether relationship changes are actually experienced. METHODS: We conducted 6 focus groups in 47 of 114 invited individuals (41%), asking retrospectively about motivations and decision making around transplantation. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the focus group transcripts. RESULTS: Most deceased donor kidney recipients had a potential living donor available which they refused or did not want. They mostly waited for a deceased donor because of concern for the donor’s health (75%). They more often expected negative relationship changes than living donor kidney recipients (75% vs. 27%, p = 0.01) who also expected positive changes. Living donor kidney recipients mostly accepted the kidney to improve their own quality of life (47%). Donors mostly donated a kidney because transplantation would make the recipient less dependent (25%). After transplantation both positive and negative relationship changes are experienced. CONCLUSION: Expected relationship changes and concerns about the donor’s health lead some kidney patients to wait for a deceased donor, despite having a potential living donor available. Further research is needed to assess whether this concerns a selected group

Association between initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy beyond 30 days after surgery and overall survival among patients with triple-negative breast cancer

Delayed time to chemotherapy (TTC) is associated with decreased outcomes of breast cancer patients. Recently, studies suggested that the association might be subtype-dependent and that TTC within 30 days should be warranted in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The aim of the current study is to determine if TTC beyond 30 days is associated with reduced 10-year overall survival in TNBC patients. We identified all TNBC patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2014 who received adjuvant chemotherapy in the Netherlands. We distinguished between breast-conserving surgery (BCS) vs. mastectomy given the difference in preoperative characteristics and outcomes. The association was estimated with hazard ratios (HRs) using propensity-score matched Cox proportional hazard analyses. In total, 3,016 patients were included. In matched patients who underwent BCS (n = 904), 10-year overall survival was favorable for patients with TTC within 30 days (84.4% vs. 76.9%, p = 0.001). Patients with TTC beyond 30 days were more likely than those with TTC within 30 days to die within 10 years after surgery (HR 1.69 (95% CI 1.22–2.34), p = 0.002). In matched patients who underwent mastectomy (n = 1,568), there was no difference in 10 years overall survival between those with TTC within or beyond 30 days (74.5% vs. 74.7%, p = 0.716), nor an increased risk of death for those with TTC beyond 30 days (HR 1.04 (95% CI 0.84–1.28), p = 0.716). Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy beyond 30 days is associated with decreased 10 years overall survival in TNBC patients who underwent BCS. Therefore, timelier initiation of chemotherapy in TNBC patients undergoing BCS seems warranted

Nationwide population-based study of the impact of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy

Background: Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy within 6–12 weeks after mastectomy is recommended by guidelines. The aim of this population-based study was to investigate whether immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy reduces the likelihood of timely initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: All patients with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy between 2012 and 2016 in the Netherlands were identified. Time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was categorized as within 6 weeks or after more than 6 weeks, within 9 weeks or after more than 9 weeks, and within 12 weeks or after more than 12 weeks. The impact of IBR on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for these three scenarios was estimated using propensity score matching to adjust for treatment by indication bias. Results: A total of 6300 patients had undergone primary mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 1700 (27·0 per cent) had received IBR. Multivariable analysis revealed that IBR reduced the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0·76, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 0·87) and 9 weeks (0·69, 0·54 to 0·87), but not within 12 weeks (OR 0·75, 0·48 to 1·17). Following propensity score matching, IBR only reduced the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 weeks (OR 0·95, 0·90 to 0·99), but not within 9 weeks (OR 0·97, 0·95 to 1·00) or 12 weeks (OR 1·00, 0·99 to 1·01). Conclusion: Postmastectomy IBR marginally reduce

Is the impact of hospital performance data greater in patients who have compared hospitals?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public information on average has limited impact on patients' hospital choice. However, the impact may be greater in consumers who have compared hospitals prior to their hospital choice. We therefore assessed whether patients who have compared hospitals based their hospital choice mainly on public information, rather than e.g. advice of their general practitioner and consider other information important than patients who have not compared hospitals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>337 new surgical patients completed an internet-based questionnaire. They were asked whether they had compared hospitals prior to their hospital choice and which factors influenced their choice. They were also asked to select between four and ten items of hospital information (total: 41 items) relevant for their future hospital choice. These were subsequently used in a hospital choice experiment in which participants were asked to compare hospitals in an Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint analysis to estimate which of the hospital characteristics had the highest Relative Importance (RI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients who have compared hospitals more often used public information for their hospital choice than patients who have not compared hospitals (12.7% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001). However, they still mostly relied on their own (47.9%) and other people's experiences (31%) rather than to base their decision on public information. Both groups valued physician's expertise (RI 20.2 [16.6-24.8] in patients comparing hospitals vs. 16.5 [14.2-18.8] in patients not comparing hospitals) and waiting time (RI 15.1 [10.7-19.6] vs. 15.6 [13.2-17.9] respectively) as most important public information. Patients who have compared hospitals assigned greater importance to information on wound infections (p = 0.010) and respect for patients (p = 0.022), but lower importance to hospital distance (p = 0.041).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Public information has limited impact on patient's hospital choice, even in patients who have actually compared hospitals prior to hospital choice.</p