Johannes A. Govaert

Nationwide Outcomes Measurement in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Improving Quality and Reducing Costs

BACKGROUND Recent literature suggests that focus in health care should shift from reducing costs to improving quality; where quality of health care improves, cost reduction will follow. Our primary aim was to investigate whether improving the quality of surgical colorectal cancer care, by using a national quality improvement initiative, leads to a reduction of hospital costs. STUDY DESIGN This was a retrospective analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in 29 Dutch hospitals (9,913 patients). Detailed clinical data were obtained from the 2010 to 2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patient-level costs were measured uniformly in all participating hospitals and based on time-driven, activity-based costing. Odds ratios (OR) and relative differences (RD) were risk adjusted for hospitals and differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS Over 3 consecutive years, severe complications and mortality declined by 20% (risk-adjusted OR 0.739, 95% CI 0.653 to 0.836, p < 0.001), and 29% (risk-adjusted OR 0.757, 95% CI 0.571 to 1.003, p = 0.05), respectively. Simultaneously, costs during primary admission decreased 9% (risk-adjusted RD -7%, 95% CI -10% to -5%, p < 0.001) without an increase in costs within the first 90 days after discharge (RD -2%, 95% CI -10% to 6%, p = 0.65). An inverse relationship (at hospital level) between severe complication rate and hospital costs was identified (R = 0.64). Hospitals with increasing severe complication rates (between 2010 and 2012) were associated with increasing costs; hospitals with declining severe complication rates were associated with cost reduction. CONCLUSIONS This report presents evidence for simultaneous quality improvement and cost reduction. Participation in a nationwide quality improvement initiative with continuous quality measurement and benchmarked feedback reveals opportunities for targeted improvements, bringing the medical field forward in improving value of health care delivery. The focus of health care should shift to improving quality, which will catalyze costs savings as well.

Costs of complications after colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands: Building the business case for hospitals

BACKGROUND Healthcare providers worldwide are struggling with rising costs while hospitals budgets are under stress. Colorectal cancer surgery is commonly performed, however it is associated with a disproportionate share of adverse events in general surgery. Since adverse events are associated with extra hospital costs it seems important to explicitly discuss the costs of complications and the risk factors for high-costs after colorectal surgery. METHODS Retrospective analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in 29 Dutch hospitals (6768 patients). Detailed clinical data was derived from the 2011-2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database. Costs were measured uniform in all participating hospitals and based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. FINDINGS Of total hospital costs in this study, 31% was spent on complications and the top 5% most expensive patients were accountable for 23% of hospitals budgets. Minor and severe complications were respectively associated with a 26% and 196% increase in costs as compared to patients without complications. Independent from other risk factors, ASA IV, double tumor, ASA III, short course preoperative radiotherapy and TNM-4 stadium disease were the top-5 attributors to high costs. CONCLUSIONS This article shows that complications after colorectal cancer surgery are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Although not all surgical complications can be prevented, reducing complications will result in considerable cost savings. By providing a business case we show that investments made to develop targeted quality improvement programs will pay off eventually. Results based on this study should encourage healthcare providers to endorse quality improvement efforts.

Reducing Healthcare Costs Facilitated by Surgical Auditing: A Systematic Review

BackgroundSurgical auditing has been developed in order to benchmark and to facilitate quality improvement. The aim of this review is to determine if auditing combined with systematic feedback of information on process and outcomes of care results in lower costs of surgical care.MethodA systematic search of published literature before 21-08-2013 was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Articles were selected if they met the inclusion criteria of describing a surgical audit with cost-evaluation.ResultsThe systematic search resulted in 3608 papers. Six studies were identified as relevant, all showing a positive effect of surgical auditing on quality of healthcare and therefore cost savings was reported. Cost reductions ranging from

Colorectal cancer surgery for obese patients: Financial and clinical outcomes of a Dutch population‐based registry

16 to

Multicenter Stratified Comparison of Hospital Costs Between Laparoscopic and Open Colorectal Cancer Resections Influence of Tumor Location and Operative Risk

356 per patient were seen in audits evaluating general or vascular procedures. The highest potential cost reduction was described in a colorectal surgical audit (up to

Hospital costs of colorectal cancer surgery for the oldest old: A Dutch population-based study

1,986 per patient).ConclusionsAll six identified articles in this review describe a reduction in complications and thereby a reduction in costs due to surgical auditing. Surgical auditing may be of greater value when high-risk procedures are evaluated, since prevention of adverse events in these procedures might be of greater clinical and therefore of greater financial impact.Implication of key findingsThis systematic review shows that surgical auditing can function as a quality instrument and therefore as a tool to reduce costs. Since evidence is scarce so far, further studies should be performed to investigate if surgical auditing has positive effects to turn the rising healthcare costs around. In the future, incorporating (actual) cost analyses and patient-related outcome measures would increase the audits’ value and provide a complete overview of the value of healthcare.

Weekend Effect in Emergency Colon and Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Study Using Data From the Dutch ColoRectal Audit

The objective of this study was to explore the association among adverse events, body mass index (BMI), and hospital costs after colorectal cancer surgery in a country with an intermediate BMI distribution.

Hospital costs of complications after esophagectomy for cancer

Objective: To compare actual 90-day hospital costs between elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter setting stratified for operative risk. Background: Laparoscopic resection has developed as a commonly accepted surgical procedure for colorectal cancer. There are conflicting data on the influence of laparoscopy on hospital costs, without separate analyses based on operative risk. Methods: Retrospective analyses using a population-based database (Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit). All elective resections for a T1-3N0-2M0 stage colorectal cancer were included between 2010 and 2012 in 29 Dutch hospitals. Operative risk was stratified for age (<75 years or ≥75 years) and ASA status (I-II/III-IV). Ninety-day hospital costs were measured uniformly in all hospitals based on time-driven activity-based costing. Results: Total 90-day hospital costs ranged from &OV0556;10474 to &OV0556;20865 in the predefined subgroups. For colon cancer surgery (N = 4202), laparoscopic resection was significant less expensive than open resection in all subgroups, savings because of laparoscopy ranged from &OV0556;409 (<75 years ASA I-II) to &OV0556;1932 (≥75 years ASA I-II). In patients ≥75 years and ASA I-II, laparoscopic resection was associated with 46% less mortality (P = 0.05), 41% less severe complications (P < 0.001), 25% less hospital stay (P = 0.013), and 65% less ICU stay (P < 0.001). For rectal cancer surgery (N=2328), all laparoscopic subgroups had significantly higher total hospital costs, ranging from &OV0556;501 (<75 years ASA I-II) to &OV0556;2515 (≥75 years ASA III-IV). Conclusions: Laparoscopic resection resulted in the largest cost reduction in patients over 75 years with ASA I-II undergoing colonic resection, and the largest cost increase in patients over 75 years with ASA III-IV undergoing rectal resection as compared with an open approach.

Single center cost analysis of single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgical treatment in colorectal malignant diseases

Background Due to increasing healthcare costs, discussions regarding increased hospital costs when operating on high‐risk patients is rising. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze if oldest‐old colorectal cancer patients have a greater impact on hospital costs than their younger counterparts.

1207 The additional costs of obese patients after colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands: A retrospective multicenter study

Background: It is unclear whether emergency weekend colon and rectal cancer surgery are associated with worse outcomes (ie, weekend effect) because previous studies mostly used administrative data, which may insufficiently adjust for case-mix. Materials and Methods: Prospectively collected data from the 2012-2015 Dutch ColoRectal Audit (n=5,224) was used to examine differences in 30-day mortality and severe complication and failure-to-rescue rates for emergency weekend (Saturday and Sunday) versus Monday surgery, stratified for colon and rectal cancer. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, tumor stage, presence of metastasis, preoperative complication, additional resection for metastasis or locally advanced tumor, location primary colon tumor, type of rectal surgery (lower anterior resection or abdominal perineal resection), and type of neoadjuvant therapy (short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy). Results: A total of 5,052 patients undergoing colon cancer surgery and 172 undergoing rectal cancer surgery were included. Patients undergoing colon or rectal cancer surgery during weekends had significantly more preoperative tumor complications compared with those undergoing surgery on a weekday. Additionally, differences in year of surgery and location of primary tumor were found for colon cancer surgery. Emergency colon cancer surgery during the weekend was associated with increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.10-2.50) and severe complications (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63) compared with surgery on Monday. Estimates for emergency weekend rectal cancer surgery were similar but not statistically significant, likely explained by small numbers. Conclusions: Weekend emergency colon cancer surgery was associated with higher mortality and severe complication rates. More research is needed to understand which factors explain and contribute to these differences.