Angela M. Ingraham

The Influence of Resident Involvement on Surgical Outcomes

BACKGROUNDnAlthough the training of surgical residents is often considered in national policy addressing complications and safety, the influence of resident intraoperative involvement on surgical outcomes has not been well studied.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnWe identified 607,683 surgical cases from 234 hospitals from the 2006 to 2009 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). Outcomes were compared by resident involvement for all general and vascular cases as well as for specific general surgical procedures.nnnRESULTSnAfter typical ACS NSQIP comorbidity risk adjustment and further adjustment for hospital teaching status and operative time in modeling, resident intraoperative involvement was associated with slightly increased morbidity when assessing overall general or vascular procedures (odds ratio [OR] 1.06; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09), pancreatectomy or esophagectomy (OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.45), and colorectal resections (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.22). In contrast, for mortality, resident intraoperative involvement was associated with reductions for overall general and vascular procedures (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), colorectal resections (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99), and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95). Results were moderated somewhat after hierarchical modeling was performed to account for hospital-level variation, with mortality results no longer reaching significance (overall morbidity OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.10, overall mortality OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05). Based on risk-adjusted event rates, resident intraoperative involvement is associated with approximately 6.1 additional morbidity events but 1.4 fewer deaths per 1,000 general and vascular surgery procedures.nnnCONCLUSIONSnResident intraoperative participation is associated with slightly higher morbidity rates but slightly decreased mortality rates across a variety of procedures and is minimized further after taking into account hospital-level variation. These clinically small effects may serve to reassure patients and others that resident involvement in surgical care is safe and possibly protective with regard to mortality.

Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals.

BACKGROUNDnThe benefit of laparoscopic (LA) versus open (OA) appendectomy, particularly for complicated appendicitis, remains unclear. Our objectives were to assess 30-day outcomes after LA versus OA for acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis, determine the incidence of specific outcomes after appendectomy, and examine factors influencing the utilization and duration of the operative approach with multi-institutional clinical data.nnnMETHODSnUsing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2005-2008), patients were identified who underwent emergency appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 participating hospitals. Regression models, which included propensity score adjustment to minimize the influence of treatment selection bias, were constructed. Models assessed the association between surgical approach (LA vs OA) and risk-adjusted overall morbidity, surgical site infection (SSI), serious morbidity, and serious morbidity/mortality, as well as individual complications in patients with acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis. The relationships between operative approach, operative duration, and extended duration of stay with hospital academic affiliation were also examined.nnnRESULTSnOf 32,683 patients, 24,969 (76.4%) underwent LA and 7,714 (23.6%) underwent OA. Patients who underwent OA were significantly older with more comorbidities compared with those who underwent LA. Patients treated with LA were less likely to experience an overall morbidity (4.5% vs 8.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.68) or a SSI (3.3% vs 6.7%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.65) but not a serious morbidity (2.6% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) or a serious morbidity/mortality (2.6% vs 4.3%; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) compared with those who underwent OA. All patients treated with LA were significantly less likely to develop individual infectious complications except for organ space SSI. Among patients with complicated appendicitis, organ space SSI was significantly more common after laparoscopic appendectomy (6.3% vs 4.8%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.73). For all patients with acute appendicitis, those treated at academic-affiliated versus community hospitals were equally likely to undergo LA versus OA (77.0% vs 77.3%; P = .58). Operative duration at academic centers was significantly longer for both LA and OA (LA, 47 vs 38 minutes [P < .0001]; OA, 49 vs 44 minutes [P < .0001]). Median duration of stay after LA was 1 day at both academic-affiliated and community hospitals.nnnCONCLUSIONnWithin ACS NSQIP hospitals, LA is associated with lower overall morbidity in selected patients. However, patients with complicated appendicitis may have a greater risk of organ space SSI after LA. Academic affiliation does not seem to influence the operative approach. However, LA is associated with similar durations of stay but slightly greater operative times than OA at academic versus community hospitals.

Association of surgical care improvement project infection-related process measure compliance with risk-adjusted outcomes: Implications for quality measurement

BACKGROUNDnFacility-level process measure adherence is being publicly reported. However, the association between measure adherence and surgical outcomes is not well-established. Our objective was to determine the degree to which Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) process measures are associated with American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) risk-adjusted outcomes.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnThis cross-sectional study included hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP and SCIP (n = 200). ACS NSQIP outcomes (30-day overall morbidity, serious morbidity, surgical site infections [SSI], and mortality) and adherence to SCIP SSI-related process measures (from the Hospital Compare database) were collected from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. Hospital-level correlation coefficients between compliance with 4 process measures (ie, antibiotic administration within 1 hour before incision [SCIP-1]; appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis [SCIP-2]; antibiotic discontinuation within 24 hours after surgery [SCIP-3]; and appropriate hair removal [SCIP 6]) and 4 risk-adjusted outcomes were calculated. Regression analyses estimated the contribution of process measure adherence to risk-adjusted outcomes.nnnRESULTSnOf 211 ACS NSQIP hospitals, 95% had data reported by Hospital Compare. Depending on the measure, hospital-level compliance ranged from 60% to 100%. Of the 16 correlations, 15 demonstrated nonsignificant associations with risk-adjusted outcomes. The exception was the relationship between SCIP-2 and SSI (p = 0.004). SCIP-1 demonstrated an intriguing but nonsignificant relationship with SSI (p = 0.08) and overall morbidity (p = 0.08). Although adherence to SCIP-2 was a significant predictor of risk-adjusted SSI (p < 0.0001) and overall morbidity (p < 0.0001), inclusion of compliance for SCIP-1 and SCIP-2 caused only slight improvement in model quality.nnnCONCLUSIONSnBetter adherence to infection-related process measures over the observed range was not significantly associated with better outcomes with one exception. Different measures of quality might be needed for surgical infection.

Effect of Postdischarge Morbidity and Mortality on Comparisons of Hospital Surgical Quality

Background:Hospitals increasingly rely on surgical quality assessment programs that require considerable resources to capture outcomes after hospital discharge. However, it is unclear whether capturing postdischarge complications and deaths is important. Our objectives were (1) to determine the frequency of postdischarge complications and deaths and (2) to determine whether hospital rankings change with inclusion of postdischarge outcomes. Methods:From 181 hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, 329,951 patients were identified (2006–2007). Mortality and 19 complications within 30 days of the index operation were categorized as occurring before or after discharge. Risk-adjusted hospital rankings were compared based on whether only predischarge (inpatient) versus both pre- and postdischarge (inpatient and outpatient within 30 days of operation) morbidity and mortality were included. Results:Postdischarge complications accounted for 32.9% of all complications. Certain complications occurred frequently after discharge: surgical site infections (66.0%), urinary tract infections (39.4%), pulmonary embolisms (42.2%), and deep venous thromboses (34.5%). Of all patients experiencing complications, 39.7% had only postdischarge complications. Of 5827 postoperative deaths, 23.6% occurred after discharge. Hospital quality rankings changed when postdischarge outcomes were excluded versus included for morbidity (median hospital rank change: 16 ranks; interquartile range, 7–36) and mortality (median hospital rank change: 14 ranks; interquartile range, 6–29), and there was disagreement in outlier status designations depending on whether postdischarge events were included (morbidity: &kgr; = 0.546; mortality: &kgr; = 0.507). Conclusions:A substantial proportion of postoperative complications and deaths occur after hospital discharge. Inclusion of postdischarge events considerably affects hospital quality rankings and outlier status designations. Quality improvement programs and research that do not consider postdischarge outcomes may offer incomplete information to hospitals, payers, providers, and patients.

Evaluation and management of geriatric trauma: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline.

BACKGROUND Aging patients constitute an increasing proportion of patients treated at trauma centers. Previous and existing guidelines addressing care of the injured elder have not adequately addressed emerging data regarding optimal means for undertaking triage decisions, correcting coagulopathy, and the limitations of supraphysiologic resuscitation. METHODS More than 400 MEDLINE citations published between the years 2000 and 2008 were identified and screened. A total of 90 references were selected for the evidentiary table followed by consensus-based discussions regarding the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations that could be derived from the related findings of the individual studies. RESULTS In general, a lower threshold for trauma activation should be used for injured patients aged 65 years or older who are evaluated at trauma centers. Furthermore, elderly patients with at least one body system with an AIS score of 3 or higher or a base deficit of −6 or less should be treated at trauma centers, preferably in intensive care units staffed by surgeon-intensivists. In addition, all elderly patients who receive daily therapeutic anticoagulation should have appropriate assessment of their coagulation profile and cross-sectional imaging of the brain as soon as possible after admission where appropriate. In patients aged 65 years or older with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score less than 8, if substantial improvement in GCS is not realized within 72 hours of injury, consideration should be given to limiting further aggressive therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSION Effective evidence-based care of aging patients necessitates aggressive triage, correction of coagulopathy, and limitation of care when clinical evidence points toward an overwhelming likelihood of poor long-term prognosis.

Effect of Delay to Operation on Outcomes in Adults With Acute Appendicitis

OBJECTIVEnTo examine the effect of delay from surgical admission to induction of anesthesia on outcomes after appendectomy for acute appendicitis in adults.nnnDESIGNnRetrospective cohort study with the principal exposure being time to operation. Regression models yielded probabilities of outcomes adjusted for patient and operative risk factors.nnnSETTINGnData were submitted to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008.nnnPATIENTSnPatients with acute appendicitis who underwent an appendectomy.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESnThirty-day overall morbidity and serious morbidity/mortality.nnnRESULTSnOf 32,782 patients, 24,647 (75.2%) underwent operations within 6 hours of surgical admission, 4934 (15.1%) underwent operations more than 6 through 12 hours, and 3201 (9.8%) underwent operations more than 12 hours after surgical admission. Differences in operative duration (51, 50, and 55 minutes, respectively; P < .001) were statistically significant but not clinically meaningful. The length of postoperative stay (2.2 days for the >12-hour group vs 1.8 days for the remaining groups; P < .001) was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful. No significant differences were found in adjusted overall morbidity (5.5%, 5.4%, and 6.1%, respectively; P = .33) or serious morbidity/mortality (3.0%, 3.6%, and 3.0%, respectively; P = .17). Duration from surgical admission to induction of anesthesia was not predictive in regression models for overall morbidity or serious morbidity/mortality.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn this retrospective study, delay of appendectomy for acute appendicitis in adults does not appear to adversely affect 30-day outcomes. This information can guide the use of potentially limited operative and professional resources allocated for emergency care.

A Current Profile and Assessment of North American Cholecystectomy: Results from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUNDnCholecystectomy is among the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. The current state of cholecystectomy outcomes, including variations in hospital performance, is unclear. The objective of this study is to compare the risk factors, indications, and 30-day outcomes, as well as variations in hospital performance associated with laparoscopic (LC) versus open cholecystectomy (OC) at 221 hospitals during a 4-year period.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnUsing the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2005-2008), patients were identified who underwent cholecystectomy and related procedures (cholangiogram and/or common bile duct exploration). Four outcomes were studied, ie, 30-day overall morbidity, serious morbidity, surgical site infections, and mortality. Forward stepwise logistic regressions yielded patient-level predicted probabilities, and hospital-level observed-to-expected ratios were determined.nnnRESULTSnOf 65,511 patients, 58,659 (89.5%) underwent LC; 6,852 (10.5%) underwent OC. OC patients were considerably older with a higher comorbidity burden. LC patients were less likely to experience any morbidity (3.1% versus 17.8%; p < 0.0001), a serious morbidity (1.4% versus 11.1%; p < 0.0001), or a surgical site infection (1.3% versus 8.4%; p < 0.0001), and less likely to die (0.3% versus 2.8%; p < 0.0001). Observed-to-expected ratios for overall morbidity ranged from 0 to 3.55; for serious morbidity, 0 to 3.23; for surgical site infection, 0 to 7.02; for mortality, 0 to 13.05.nnnCONCLUSIONSnAlthough overall incidence of adverse events is low after LC, substantial morbidity and mortality are associated with OC. Additionally, controlling for patient- and operation-related factors, considerable variations exist in hospital performance when evaluating 30-day outcomes after cholecystectomy.

Comparison of Hospital Performance in Nonemergency Versus Emergency Colorectal Operations at 142 Hospitals

BACKGROUNDnQuality improvement efforts have demonstrated considerable hospital-to-hospital variation in surgical outcomes. However, information about the quality of emergency surgical care is lacking. The objective of this study was to assess whether hospitals have comparable outcomes for emergency and nonemergency operations.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnPatients undergoing colorectal resections were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) 2005 to 2007 dataset. Logistic regression models for 30-day morbidity and mortality after emergency and nonemergency colorectal resections were constructed. Hospital risk-adjusted outcomes as measured by observed to expected (O/E) ratios, outlier status, and rank-order differences were compared.nnnRESULTSnOf 25,710 nonemergency colorectal resections performed at 142 ACS NSQIP hospitals, 6,138 (23.9%) patients experienced at least 1 complication, and 492 (1.9%) patients died. There were 5,083 emergency colorectal resections; 2,442 (48%) patients experienced at least 1 complication, and 780 (15.3%) patients died. Outcomes for nonemergency versus emergency operations were weakly correlated for morbidity and mortality (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.28 versus 0.13). Median differences in hospital rankings based on O/E ratios between nonemergency and emergency performance were 30.5 ranks (interquartile range [IQR] 13 to 59) for morbidity and 34 ranks (interquartile ratio 17 to 61) for mortality.nnnCONCLUSIONSnHospitals with favorable outcomes after nonemergency colorectal resections do not necessarily have similar outcomes for emergency operations. Hospitals should specifically examine their performance on emergency surgical procedures to identify quality improvement opportunities and focus quality improvement efforts appropriately.

Improving American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Risk Adjustment: Incorporation of a Novel Procedure Risk Score

BACKGROUNDnRisk-adjusted evaluation is a key component of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). The purpose of this study was to improve standard ACS NSQIP risk adjustment using a novel procedure risk score.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnCurrent Procedural Terminology codes (CPTs) represented in ACS NSQIP data were assigned to 136 procedure groups. Log odds predicted risk from preliminary logistic regression modeling generated a continuous risk score for each procedure group, used in subsequent modeling. Appropriate subsets of 271,368 patients in the 2008 ACS NSQIP were evaluated using logistic models for overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, and surgical site infection (SSI). Models were compared when including either work Relative Value Unit (RVU), RVU and the standard ACS NSQIP CPT range variable (CPT range), or RVU and the newly constructed CPT risk score (CPT risk), plus routine ACS NSQIP predictors.nnnRESULTSnWhen comparing the CPT risk models with the CPT range models for morbidity in the overall general and vascular surgery dataset, CPT risk models provided better discrimination through higher c statistics at earlier steps (0.81 by step 3 vs 0.81 by step 46), more information through lower Akaikes information criterion (127,139 vs 130,019), and improved calibration through a smaller Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square statistic (48.76 vs 116.79). Improved model characteristics of CPT risk over CPT range were most apparent for broader patient populations and outcomes. The CPT risk and standard CPT range models were moderately consistent in identification of outliers as well as assignment of hospitals to quality deciles (weighted kappa ≥ 0.870).nnnCONCLUSIONSnInformation from focused, clinically meaningful CPT procedure groups improves the risk estimation of ACS NSQIP models.

Comparison of 30-day outcomes after emergency general surgery procedures: Potential for targeted improvement

BACKGROUNDnPatients who undergo emergency operations represent a high-risk population and have been shown to have a high risk of poor outcomes. Little is known, however, about the variability in the quality of emergency general surgical care across hospitals or within hospitals across different procedures. The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors associated with adverse events, to compare 30-day outcomes after 3 common emergency general surgery procedures within and across hospitals, and thus, to determine whether the quality of emergency surgical care is procedure-dependent or intrinsic to other aspects of the hospital environment.nnnMETHODSnPatients who underwent emergency appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or colorectal resection at 95 hospitals that submitted at least 20 of each procedure were identified in the 2005-2008 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. Outcomes of interest included 30-day overall morbidity and serious morbidity/mortality. Step-wise logistic regression generated patient-level predicted probabilities of an outcome. Based on the expected probabilities, observed to expected (O/E) ratios for each outcome, after each of the 3 procedures, were calculated for each hospital. Hospitals were divided into terciles based on O/E ratios. The agreement on hospital outcomes performance for overall morbidity and serious morbidity/mortality after appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and colorectal resection was assessed using weighted kappa statistics.nnnRESULTSnOf the 30,788 appendectomies, 1,984 (6.44%) patients had any morbidity, and 1,140 (3.70%) patients had a serious morbidity or died. Of the 5,824 cholecystectomies, 503 (8.64%) patients had any morbidity, and 371 (6.37%) patients had a serious morbidity or died. Of the 8,990 colorectal resections, 4,202 (46.74%) patients had any morbidity, and 3,736 (41.56%) patients had a serious morbidity or died. For overall morbidity, O/E ratios for appendectomy ranged from 0.26 to 2.36; O/E ratios for cholecystectomy ranged from 0 to 3.04; O/E ratios for colorectal resection ranged from 0.45 to 1.51. For serious morbidity/mortality, O/E ratios for appendectomy ranged from 0.23 to 2.54; O/E ratios for cholecystectomy ranged from 0 to 4.28; O/E ratios for colorectal resection ranged from 0.59 to 1.75. Associations of risk-adjusted hospital outcomes based on tercile rank between procedures demonstrated slight but significant agreement for both overall morbidity (weighted kappa between 0.20 and 0.22) and serious morbidity/mortality (weighted kappa between 0.18 and 0.22). Despite this, 7 (7.4%) hospitals for overall morbidity and 9 (9.5%) hospitals for serious morbidity/mortality were rated in the highest (best) tercile for all procedures. Eight (8.4%) hospitals for overall morbidity and 8 (8.4%) hospitals for serious morbidity/mortality were rated in the lowest tercile for all procedures.nnnCONCLUSIONnEmergency general surgery procedures, particularly colorectal resections, were associated with substantial 30-day overall morbidity and serious morbidity/mortality. Most hospitals did not have consistent risk-adjusted outcomes across all 3 procedures, but for a substantive minority of institutions (7-10%), good or bad performance was generalizable across procedures. Individual hospitals should examine their procedure-specific outcomes after emergency general surgery operations to focus quality improvement initiatives appropriately.