Jeanette W. Chung

Underlying Reasons Associated With Hospital Readmission Following Surgery in the United States

IMPORTANCE Financial penalties for readmission have been expanded beyond medical conditions to include surgical procedures. Hospitals are working to reduce readmissions; however, little is known about the reasons for surgical readmission. OBJECTIVE To characterize the reasons, timing, and factors associated with unplanned postoperative readmissions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patients undergoing surgery at one of 346 continuously enrolled US hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012, had clinically abstracted information examined. Readmission rates and reasons (ascertained by clinical data abstractors at each hospital) were assessed for all surgical procedures and for 6 representative operations: bariatric procedures, colectomy or proctectomy, hysterectomy, total hip or knee arthroplasty, ventral hernia repair, and lower extremity vascular bypass. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Unplanned 30-day readmission and reason for readmission. RESULTS The unplanned readmission rate for the 498,875 operations was 5.7%. For the individual procedures, the readmission rate ranged from 3.8% for hysterectomy to 14.9% for lower extremity vascular bypass. The most common reason for unplanned readmission was surgical site infection (SSI) overall (19.5%) and also after colectomy or proctectomy (25.8%), ventral hernia repair (26.5%), hysterectomy (28.8%), arthroplasty (18.8%), and lower extremity vascular bypass (36.4%). Obstruction or ileus was the most common reason for readmission after bariatric surgery (24.5%) and the second most common reason overall (10.3%), after colectomy or proctectomy (18.1%), ventral hernia repair (16.7%), and hysterectomy (13.4%). Only 2.3% of patients were readmitted for the same complication they had experienced during their index hospitalization. Only 3.3% of patients readmitted for SSIs had experienced an SSI during their index hospitalization. There was no time pattern for readmission, and early (≤7 days postdischarge) and late (>7 days postdischarge) readmissions were associated with the same 3 most common reasons: SSI, ileus or obstruction, and bleeding. Patient comorbidities, index surgical admission complications, non-home discharge (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35-1.46]), teaching hospital status (HR, 1.14 [95% CI 1.07-1.21]), and higher surgical volume (HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.07-1.25]) were associated with a higher risk of hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Readmissions after surgery were associated with new postdischarge complications related to the procedure and not exacerbation of prior index hospitalization complications, suggesting that readmissions after surgery are a measure of postdischarge complications. These data should be considered when developing quality indicators and any policies penalizing hospitals for surgical readmission.

Evaluation of Surveillance Bias and the Validity of the Venous Thromboembolism Quality Measure

IMPORTANCE Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates are widely reported quality metrics soon to be used in pay-for-performance programs. Surveillance bias occurs when some clinicians use imaging studies to detect VTE more frequently than other clinicians. Because they look more, they find more VTE events, paradoxically worsening their hospitals VTE quality measure performance. A surveillance bias may influence VTE measurement if (1) greater hospital VTE prophylaxis adherence fails to result in lower measured VTE rates, (2) hospitals with characteristics suggestive of higher quality (eg, more accreditations) have greater VTE prophylaxis adherence rates but worse VTE event rates, and (3) higher hospital VTE imaging utilization use rates are associated with higher measured VTE event rates. OBJECTIVE To examine whether a surveillance bias influences the validity of reported VTE rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS 2010 Hospital Compare and American Hospital Association data from 2838 hospitals were merged. Next, 2009-2010 Medicare claims data for 954,926 surgical patient discharges from 2786 hospitals who were undergoing 1 of 11 major operations were used to calculate VTE imaging (duplex ultrasonography, chest computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, and ventilation-perfusion scans) and VTE event rates. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The association between hospital VTE prophylaxis adherence and risk-adjusted VTE event rates was examined. The relationship between a summary score of hospital structural characteristics reflecting quality (hospital size, numbers of accreditations/quality initiatives) and performance on VTE prophylaxis and risk-adjusted VTE measures was examined. Hospital-level VTE event rates were compared across VTE diagnostic imaging rate quartiles and with a quantile regression. RESULTS Greater hospital VTE prophylaxis adherence rates were weakly associated with worse risk-adjusted VTE event rates (r2 = 4.2%; P = .03). Hospitals with increasing structural quality scores had higher VTE prophylaxis adherence rates (93.3% vs 95.5%, lowest vs highest quality quartile; P < .001) but worse risk-adjusted VTE rates (4.8 vs 6.4 per 1000, lowest vs highest quality quartile; P < .001). Mean VTE diagnostic imaging rates ranged from 32 studies per 1000 in the lowest imaging use quartile to 167 per 1000 in the highest quartile (P < .001). Risk-adjusted VTE rates increased significantly with VTE imaging use rates in a stepwise fashion, from 5.0 per 1000 in the lowest quartile to 13.5 per 1000 in the highest quartile (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospitals with higher quality scores had higher VTE prophylaxis rates but worse risk-adjusted VTE rates. Increased hospital VTE event rates were associated with increasing hospital VTE imaging use rates. Surveillance bias limits the usefulness of the VTE quality measure for hospitals working to improve quality and patients seeking to identify a high-quality hospital.

Estimate of the Carbon Footprint of the US Health Care Sector

decrease with time. We agree with Vincent that the initial resuscitation period is critical. However, it is inappropriate to conclude, in the absence of supporting evidence, that treatment in the next 24 hours is unlikely to make a difference. The large prior experience with this therapy must be considered. In a meta-analysis involving 1425 patients, 786 of 978 patients received more than 1 polymyxin B treatment. We acknowledge Dr Kida’s observation of the preponderance of gram-positive organisms in the polymyxin B group. It is unlikely that this is a significant confounder. More than one-third of all patients had multiple organisms. Patients with gram-positive isolates also had gram-negative organisms. We agree that, in the absence of endotoxin measurements, the observed effects cannot be directly attributed to endotoxin removal. However, this hypothesis is logical in this context and biologically plausible.

Association of the 2011 ACGME resident duty hour reform with general surgery patient outcomes and with resident examination performance.

IMPORTANCE In 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) restricted resident duty hour requirements beyond those established in 2003, leading to concerns about the effects on patient care and resident training. OBJECTIVE To determine if the 2011 ACGME duty hour reform was associated with a change in general surgery patient outcomes or in resident examination performance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Quasi-experimental study of general surgery patient outcomes 2 years before (academic years 2009-2010) and after (academic years 2012-2013) the 2011 duty hour reform. Teaching and nonteaching hospitals were compared using a difference-in-differences approach adjusted for procedural mix, patient comorbidities, and time trends. Teaching hospitals were defined based on the proportion of cases at which residents were present intraoperatively. Patients were those undergoing surgery at hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). General surgery resident performance on the annual in-training, written board, and oral board examinations was assessed for this same period. EXPOSURES National implementation of revised resident duty hour requirements on July 1, 2011, in all ACGME accredited residency programs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was a composite of death or serious morbidity; secondary outcomes were other postoperative complications and resident examination performance. RESULTS In the main analysis, 204,641 patients were identified from 23 teaching (n = 102,525) and 31 nonteaching (n = 102,116) hospitals. The unadjusted rate of death or serious morbidity improved during the study period in both teaching (11.6% [95% CI, 11.3%-12.0%] to 9.4% [95% CI, 9.1%-9.8%], P < .001) and nonteaching hospitals (8.7% [95% CI, 8.3%-9.0%] to 7.1% [95% CI, 6.8%-7.5%], P < .001). In adjusted analyses, the 2011 ACGME duty hour reform was not associated with a significant change in death or serious morbidity in either postreform year 1 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.98-1.28) or postreform year 2 (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86-1.17) or when both postreform years were combined (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20). There was no association between duty hour reform and any other postoperative adverse outcome. Mean (SD) in-training examination scores did not significantly change from 2010 to 2013 for first-year residents (499.7 [ 85.2] to 500.5 [84.2], P = .99), for residents from other postgraduate years, or for first-time examinees taking the written or oral board examinations during this period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty hour reform was not associated with a change in general surgery patient outcomes or differences in resident examination performance. The implications of these findings should be considered when evaluating the merit of the 2011 ACGME duty hour reform and revising related policies in the future.

Effect of postoperative complications on adjuvant chemotherapy use for stage III colon cancer.

Objective: The National Quality Forum has endorsed a quality metric concerning the use of adjuvant chemotherapy administration in stage III colon cancer, yet a substantial treatment gap exists. Our objective was to evaluate the association of postoperative complications on the use of adjuvant therapy after colectomy for cancer. Patients and Methods: Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and National Cancer Data Base were linked to augment cancer registry information with robust clinical data on comorbidities and postoperative complications (2006–2008). The association of complications on adjuvant chemotherapy use was assessed using hierarchical multivariable regression models. Results: From 126 hospitals, 2368 patients underwent resection for stage III colon adenocarcinoma. Overall utilization of adjuvant chemotherapy was 63.2% (1497/2368). Of the 871 patients who did not receive chemotherapy, 652 met National Quality Forum exclusion criteria: death, severe comorbidity, refusal of care, advanced age (≥80 years), or prior malignancy. Of the remaining 219 patients, 19.1% (42/219) had 1 or more serious postoperative complications (eg, pneumonia, pulmonary failure). After accounting for the aforementioned potential explanations, the utilization rate was 87.2% (1497/1716). The strongest predictors of adjuvant chemotherapy omission were prolonged postoperative ventilation, renal failure, reintubation, and pneumonia (all Ps < 0.05). Superficial surgical site infection did not decrease adjuvant therapy receipt but delayed the time to its use by 3-fold. Serious complications increased time to chemotherapy by 65%. Abscess/anastomotic leak increased time to adjuvant chemotherapy by more than 5-fold. Conclusions: Serious postoperative complications explained nearly 20% of the adjuvant chemotherapy treatment gap for patients with stage III colon cancer. The use of clinical data remains important when judging provider performance.

Treatment Trends, Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis, and Outcomes for Localized Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND Endoscopic resection is increasingly used to treat localized, early-stage esophageal cancer. We sought to assess its adoption, characterize the risks of nodal metastases, and define differences in procedural mortality and 5-year survival between endoscopic and surgical resection in the United States. METHODS From the National Cancer Data Base, patients with T1a and T1b lesions were identified. Treatment patterns were characterized, and hierarchical regression methods were used to define predictors and evaluate outcomes. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Five thousand three hundred ninety patients were identified and underwent endoscopic (26.5%) or surgical resection (73.5%). Endoscopic resection increased from 19.0% to 53.0% for T1a lesions (P < .001) and from 6.6% to 20.9% for T1b cancers (P < .001). The strongest predictors of endoscopic resection were depth of invasion (T1a vs T1b: odds ratio [OR] = 4.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.76 to 5.27) and patient age of 75 years or older (vs age less than 55 years: OR = 4.86; 95% CI = 3.60 to 6.57). Among patients undergoing surgery, lymph node metastasis was 5.0% for T1a and 16.6% for T1b lesions. Predictors of nodal metastases included tumor size greater than 2 cm (vs. <2 cm) and intermediate-/high-grade lesions (vs low grade). For example, 0.5% of patients with low-grade T1a lesions less than 2 cm had lymph node involvement. The risk of 30-day mortality was less after endoscopic resection (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.58) but greater for conditional 5-year survival (HR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.47). CONCLUSIONS Endoscopic resection has become the most common treatment of T1a esophageal cancer and has increased for T1b cancers. It remains important to balance the risk of nodal metastases and procedural risk when counseling patients regarding their treatment options.

Development of the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees (FIRST) Trial Protocol: A National Cluster-Randomized Trial of Resident Duty Hour Policies

IMPORTANCE Debate continues regarding whether to further restrict resident duty hour policies, but little high-level evidence is available to guide policy changes. OBJECTIVE To inform decision making regarding duty hour policies, the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees (FIRST) Trial is being conducted to evaluate whether changing resident duty hour policies to permit greater flexibility in work hours affects patient postoperative outcomes, resident education, and resident well-being. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Pragmatic noninferiority cluster-randomized trial of general surgery residency programs with 2 study arms. Participating in the study are Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-approved US general surgery residency programs (n = 118), their affiliated hospitals (n = 154), surgical residents and program directors, and general surgery patients from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, with additional patient safety outcomes collected through June 30, 2016. The data collection platform for patient outcomes is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP), thus only hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP were included. INTERVENTIONS In the usual care arm, programs adhered to current ACGME resident duty hour standards. In the intervention arm, programs were allowed to deviate from current standards regarding maximum shift lengths and minimum time off between shifts through an ACGME waiver. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Death or serious morbidity within 30 days of surgery measured through ACS NSQIP, as well as resident satisfaction and well-being measured through a survey delivered at the time of the 2015 American Board of Surgery in Training Examination (ABSITE). RESULTS A total of 118 general surgery residency programs and 154 hospitals were enrolled in the FIRST Trial and randomized. Fifty-nine programs (73 hospitals) were randomized to the usual care arm and 59 programs (81 hospitals) were randomized to the intervention arm. Intent-to-treat analysis will be used to estimate the effectiveness of assignment to the intervention arm on patient outcomes, resident education, and resident well-being compared with the usual care arm. Several sensitivity analyses will be performed to determine whether there were differential effects when examining only inpatients, high-risk patients, and emergent/urgent cases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE To our knowledge, the FIRST Trial is the first national randomized clinical trial of duty hour policies. Results of this study may be informative to policymakers and other stakeholders engaged in restructuring graduate medical training to enhance the quality of patient care and resident education. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.org Identifier: NCT02050789.

U.S. Trends in hospitalization and generalist physician workforce and the emergence of hospitalists

BackgroundGeneral internists and other generalist physicians have traditionally cared for their patients during both ambulatory visits and hospitalizations. It has been suggested that the expansion of hospitalists since the mid-1990s has “crowded out” generalists from inpatient care. However, it is also possible that declining hospital utilization relative to the size of the generalist workforce reduced the incentives for generalists to continue providing hospital care.ObjectiveTo examine trends in hospital utilization and the generalist workforce before and after the emergence of hospitalists in the U.S. and to investigate factors contributing to these trends.DesignUsing data from 1980–2005 on inpatient visits from the National Hospital Discharge Survey, and physician manpower data from the American Medical Association, we identified national trends before and after the emergence of hospitalists in the annual number of inpatient encounters relative to the number of generalists.ResultsInpatient encounters relative to the number of generalists declined steadily before the emergence of hospitalists. Declines in inpatient encounters relative to the number of generalists were driven primarily by reduced hospital length of stay and increased numbers of generalists.ConclusionsHospital utilization relative to generalist workforce declined before the emergence of hospitalists, largely due to declining length of stay and rising generalist workforce. This likely weakened generalist incentives to provide hospital care. Models of care that seek to preserve dual-setting generalist care spanning ambulatory and inpatient settings are most likely to be viable if they focus on patients at high risk of hospitalization.

Surgeons' Perceptions of Public Reporting of Hospital and Individual Surgeon Quality

Background:Hospital-specific and surgeon-specific public reporting of performance measures is expanding largely due to calls for transparency from the public and oversight agencies. Surgeons continue to voice concerns regarding public reporting. Surgeons’ perceptions of hospital-level and individual-level public reporting have not been assessed. This study (1) evaluated surgeons’ perceptions of public reporting of surgical quality; and (2) identified specific barriers to surgeons’ acceptance of public reporting. Methods:All surgeons (n=185) at 4 hospitals (university, children’s, 2 community hospitals), representing all surgical specialties, received a 41-item anonymous Internet-based survey. Twenty follow-up qualitative interviews were conducted to assess surgeons’ interpretation of findings. Results:The survey response rate was 66% (n=122). Most surgeons supported public reporting of quality metrics at the hospital level (80%), but opposed individual reporting (53%, P<0.01). Fewer surgeons expected that individual (26%) or hospital (47%) public reporting would improve outcomes (P<0.01). Few indicated that their practice would change with hospital (11%) or individual (18%) public reporting (P=0.20). Primary concerns regarding public reporting at the hospital level included patients misinterpreting data, surgeons refusing high-risk patients, and outcome metric validity. Individual-surgeon level concerns included outcome metric validity, adequate sample sizes, and patients misinterpreting data. To make public reporting more acceptable, surgeons recommended patient education, simplified data presentation, continued risk-adjustment refinement, and internal review before public reporting. Conclusions:Surgeons expressed concerns about public reporting of quality metrics, particularly reporting of individual surgeon performance. These concerns must be addressed to gain surgeons’ acceptance and to use public reporting to improve health care quality.

Relationship between cancer center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures.

Objective:To evaluate differences in hospital structural quality characteristics and assess the association between national publicly reported quality indicators and cancer center accreditation status. Background:Cancer center accreditation and public reporting are 2 approaches available to help guide patients with cancer to high-quality hospitals. It is unknown whether hospital performance on these measures differs by cancer accreditation. Methods:Data from Medicares Hospital Compare and the American Hospital Association were merged. Hospitals were categorized into 3 mutually exclusive groups: National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers (NCI-CCs), Commission on Cancer (CoC) centers, and “nonaccredited” hospitals. Performance was assessed on the basis of structural, processes-of-care, patient-reported experiences, costs, and outcomes. Results:A total of 3563 hospitals (56 NCI-CCs, 1112 CoC centers, and 2395 nonaccredited hospitals) were eligible for analysis. Cancer centers (NCI-CCs and CoC centers) were more likely larger, higher volume teaching hospitals with additional services and specialists than nonaccredited hospitals (P < 0.001). Cancer centers performed better on 3 of 4 process measures, 8 of 10 patient-reported experience measures, and Medicare spending per beneficiary than nonaccredited hospitals. NCI-CCs performed worse than both CoC centers and nonaccredited hospitals on 8 of 10 outcome measures. Similarly, CoC centers performed worse than nonaccredited hospitals on 5 measures. For example, 35% of NCI-CCs, 13.5% of CoC centers, and 3.5% of nonaccredited hospitals were poor performers for serious complications. Conclusions:Accredited cancer centers performed better on most process and patient experience measures but showed worse performance on most outcome measures. These discordant findings emphasize the need to focus on oncology-specific measurement strategies.