Predictors of Mortality Up to 1 Year After Emergency Major Abdominal Surgery in Older Adults

ackground The number of older patients who undergo emergent major abdominal procedures is expected to increase yet little is known about mortality beyond 30 days after surgery. Objective Identify factors associated with mortality among older patients at 30, 180 and 365 days after emergency major abdominal surgery. Design A retrospective study of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) linked to Medicare Claims from 2000-2010. Setting N/A Participants Medicare beneficiaries > 65.5 years enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) from 2000-2010, with at least one urgent/emergent major abdominal surgery and a core interview from the HRS within 3 years prior to surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures Survival analysis was used to describe all-cause mortality at 30, 180 and 365 days after surgery. Complementary log-log regression was used to identify patient characteristics and postoperative events associated with worse survival. Results 400 patients had one of the urgent/emergent surgeries of interest. Of these 24% were > 85 years; 50% had coronary artery disease, 48% had cancer, and 33% had congestive heart failure; and 37% experienced a postoperative complication. Postoperative mortality was 20%, 31% and 34% at 30, 180 days and 365 days. Among those > 85 years, 50% were dead one year after surgery. After multivariate adjustment including postoperative complications, dementia (Hazard ratio (HR) 2.02, 95%CI 1.24-3.31), hospitalization within 6 months before surgery (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12-2.28) and complications (HR 3.45, 95%CI (2.32-5.13) were independently associated with worse one-year survival. Conclusion Overall mortality is high up to one year after surgery in many older patients undergoing emergency major abdominal surgery. The occurrence of a complication is the clinical factor most strongly associated with worse survival

International Nonregimes: A Research Agenda1

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146934/1/j.1468-2486.2007.00672.x.pd

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Association of Loss of Independence With Readmission and Death After Discharge in Older Patients After Surgical Procedures

IMPORTANCE: Older adults are at increased risk for adverse events after surgical procedures. Loss of independence (LOI), defined as a decline in function or mobility, increased care needs at home, or discharge to a nonhome destination, is an important patient-centered outcome measure. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate LOI among older adult patients after surgical procedures and examine the association of LOI with readmission and death after discharge in this population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study examined 9972 patients 65 years and older with known baseline function, mobility, and living situation undergoing inpatient operations from January 2014 to December 2014 at 26 hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Geriatric Surgery Pilot Project. A total of 4895 patients were excluded because they were totally dependent, classified as class 5 by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, undergoing orthopedic or spinal procedures, or died prior to discharge. EXPOSURES: Loss of independence at time of discharge. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Readmission and death after discharge. RESULTS: Of the 5077 patients included in this study, 2736 (53.9%) were female and 3876 (76.3%) were white, with a mean (SD) age of 75 (7) years. For this cohort, LOI increased with age; LOI occurred in 1386 of 2780 patients (49.9%) aged 65 to 74 years, 1162 of 1726 (67.3%) aged 75 to 84 years, and 479 of 571 (83.9%) 85 years and older (P \u3c .001). Readmission occurred in 517 patients (10.2%). In a risk-adjusted model, LOI was strongly associated with readmission (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.2) and postoperative complication (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 4.9-9.0). Death after discharge occurred in 69 patients (1.4%). After risk adjustment, LOI was the strongest factor associated with death after discharge (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 2.4-19.3). Postoperative complication was not significantly associated with death after discharge. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Loss of independence, a patient-centered outcome, was associated with postoperative readmissions and death after discharge. Loss of independence can feasibly be collected across multiple hospitals in a national registry. Clinical initiatives to minimize LOI will be important for improving surgical care for older adults

Summary of the panel session at the 38th Annual Surgical Symposium of the Association of VA Surgeons: what is the big deal about frailty?

Owing to the phenomenon known as "global graying," elderly-specific conditions, including frailty, will become more prominent among patients undergoing surgery. The concept of frailty, its effect on surgical outcomes, and its assessment and management were discussed during the 38th Annual Surgical Symposium of the Association of VA Surgeons panel session entitled "What's the Big Deal about Frailty?" and held in New Haven, Connecticut, on April 7, 2014. The expert panel discussed the following questions and topics: (1) Why is frailty so important? (2) How do we identify the frail patient prior to the operating room? (3) The current state of the art: preoperative frail evaluation. (4) Preoperative interventions for frailty prior to operation: do they work? (5) Intraoperative management of the frail patient: does anesthesia play a role? (6) Postoperative care of the frail patient: is rescue the issue? This special communication summarizes the panel session topics and provides highlights of the expert panel's discussions and relevant key points regarding care for the geriatric frail surgical patient

Improving the preoperative assessment of older adults considering surgery: The need for a structured curriculum during surgery residency

Background: Over half of surgeries in the United States are performed on older adults. The aims of this study were to quantify geriatric-relevant discussion topics and assessments during the consent process and to assess the need for a structured approach to consent older patients. Methods: General surgery residents at a single institution answered questions about content of the informed consent process and preoperative assessment in adult and geriatric (> 65) patients. Questions addressed frequency of geriatric- relevant discussions, assessments and consultations for the two patient groups. Results: Part 1 was completed by 66/75 residents (88.0%). Most residents received training in informed consent during medical school or residency (95%). Common avenues for training were direct observation of attending surgeons or senior residents (85%), followed by didactic teaching (47%) and independent reading (30%). Only three residents (two PGY1s and one PGY2) reported receiving specific training in how to achieve informed consent in older patients. Part 2 was completed by 47/56 eligible residents (83.9%). Postoperative expectations (85.1%), living situation (53.2%), postoperative goals (53.2%), and advanced directives (42.6%) were most commonly discussed. Cognitive testing (19.1%), geriatrics consults (14.9%), and frailty scores (4.3%) were rarely addressed. There were no correlations between discussion of this information with resident age, level in residency, self-identified gender, or self-identification as a member of a racial or ethnic minority. Conclusions: Geriatric-relevant topics and assessments occurred sporadically during the resident-led informed consent process and were more common with senior residents. Training in geriatric relevant informed consent rarely occurs during residency. These results, if generalizable across surgical training sites, highlight the need for a structured curriculum to address geriatric-relevant perioperative concerns

Disparities in rates of spine surgery for degenerative spine disease between HIV-infected and uninfected veterans.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of nationwide Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinical and administrative data. OBJECTIVE: Examine the association between HIV infection and the rate of spine surgery for degenerative spine disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Combination anti-retroviral therapy (cART) has prolonged survival in patients with HIV/AIDS, increasing the prevalence of chronic conditions such as degenerative spine disease that may require spine surgery. METHODS: We studied all HIV infected patients under care in the VA from 1996–2008 (n=40,038) and uninfected comparator patients (n=79,039) matched on age, gender, race, year, and geographic region. The primary outcome was spine surgery for degenerative spine disease defined by ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes. We used a multivariate Poisson regression to model spine surgery rates by HIV infection status, adjusting for factors that might affect suitability for surgery (demographics, year, comorbidities, body mass index, cART, and laboratory values). RESULTS: Two-hundred twenty eight HIV infected and 784 uninfected patients underwent spine surgery for degenerative spine disease during 700,731 patient-years of follow-up (1.44 surgeries per 1,000 patient-years). The most common procedures were spinal decompression (50%), and decompression and fusion (33%); the most common surgical sites were the lumbosacral (50%), and cervical (40%) spine. Adjusted rates of surgery were lower for HIV infected patients (0.86 per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up) than for uninfected patients (1.41 per 1,000 patient-years; IRR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.74, P<0.001). Among HIV infected patients, there was a trend towards lower rates of spine surgery in patients with detectable viral loads levels (IRR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.55, 1.05, P=0.099). CONCLUSION: In the VA, HIV infected patients experience significantly reduced rates of surgery for degenerative spine disease. Possible explanations include disease prevalence, emphasis on treatment of non-spine HIV-related symptoms, surgical referral patterns, impact of HIV on surgery risk-benefit ratio, patient preferences, and surgeon bias