Omar Faiz

Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy

INTRODUCTION Routinely collected data sets are increasingly used for research, financial reimbursement and health service planning. High quality data are necessary for reliable analysis. This study aims to assess the published accuracy of routinely collected data sets in Great Britain. METHODS Systematic searches of the EMBASE, PUBMED, OVID and Cochrane databases were performed from 1989 to present using defined search terms. Included studies were those that compared routinely collected data sets with case or operative note review and those that compared routinely collected data with clinical registries. RESULTS Thirty-two studies were included. Twenty-five studies compared routinely collected data with case or operation notes. Seven studies compared routinely collected data with clinical registries. The overall median accuracy (routinely collected data sets versus case notes) was 83.2% (IQR: 67.3-92.1%). The median diagnostic accuracy was 80.3% (IQR: 63.3-94.1%) with a median procedure accuracy of 84.2% (IQR: 68.7-88.7%). There was considerable variation in accuracy rates between studies (50.5-97.8%). Since the 2002 introduction of Payment by Results, accuracy has improved in some respects, for example primary diagnoses accuracy has improved from 73.8% (IQR: 59.3-92.1%) to 96.0% (IQR: 89.3-96.3), P= 0.020. CONCLUSION Accuracy rates are improving. Current levels of reported accuracy suggest that routinely collected data are sufficiently robust to support their use for research and managerial decision-making.

The Impact of Enhanced Recovery Protocol Compliance on Elective Colorectal Cancer Resection Results From an International Registry

BACKGROUND The ERAS (enhanced recovery after surgery) care has been shown in randomized clinical trials to improve outcome after colorectal surgery compared to traditional care. The impact of different levels of compliance and specific elements, particularly out with a trial setting, is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the individual impact of specific patient factors and perioperative enhanced recovery protocol compliance on postoperative outcome after elective primary colorectal cancer resection. METHODS The international, multicenter ERAS registry data, collected between November 2008 and March 2013, was reviewed. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and perioperative ERAS protocol compliance were assessed. Linear regression was undertaken for primary admission duration and logistic regression for the development of any postoperative complication. FINDINGS A total of 1509 colonic and 843 rectal resections were undertaken in 13 centers from 6 countries. Median length of stay for colorectal resections was 6 days, with readmissions in 216 (9.2%), complications in 948 (40%), and reoperation in 167 (7.1%) of 2352 patients. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68; P < 0.001] and length of stay (OR = 0.83, P < 0.001). Increasing ERAS compliance was correlated with fewer complications (OR = 0.69, P < 0.001) and shorter primary hospital admission (OR = 0.88, P < 0.001). Shorter hospital stay was associated with preoperative carbohydrate and fluid loading (OR = 0.89, P = 0.001), and totally intravenous anesthesia (OR = 0.86, P < 0.001); longer stay was associated with intraoperative epidural analgesia (OR = 1.07, P = 0.019). Reduced postoperative complications were associated with restrictive perioperative intravenous fluids (OR = 0.35, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This analysis has demonstrated that in a large, international cohort of patients, increasing compliance with an ERAS program and the use of laparoscopic surgery independently improve outcome.

Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30.0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8.2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3.65, 95% CI 2.87-4.65; p<0.0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (<10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy. FUNDING NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study.

Objective: To compare short-term outcomes of open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer. Background Data: Numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and possible advantages of MIE in selected cohorts of patients. The increasing use of MIE is not coupled with conclusive evidence of its benefits over “open” esophagectomy, especially in the absence of randomized trials. Methods: Hospital Episode Statistics data were analyzed from April 2005 to March 2010. This is a routinely collected database of all English National Health Service Trusts. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures, 4th revision (OPCS-4), procedure codes were used to identify index resections and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10), diagnostic codes were used to ascertain comorbidity status and complications. Thirty-day in-hospital mortality, medical complications, and surgical reinterventions were analyzed. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted regression analyses were undertaken. Results: Seven thousand five hundred and two esophagectomies were undertaken; of these, 1155 (15.4%) were MIE. In 2009–2010, 24.7% of resections were MIE. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (4.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.605) and overall medical morbidity (38.0% vs 39.2%; P = 0.457) rates between open and MIE groups, respectively. A higher reintervention rate was associated with the MIE group than with the open group (21% vs 17.6%, P = 0.006; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.00–1.38; P = 0.040). Conclusions: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed in the United Kingdom. Although the study confirmed the safety of MIE in a population-based national data, there are no significant benefits demonstrated in mortality and overall morbidity. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with higher reintervention rate. Further evidence is needed to establish the long-term survival of MIE.

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND Barium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS 3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7.3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5.6%] of 2527, relative risk 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; p=0.0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23.5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18.3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0.0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION CTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer. FUNDING NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in England as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics

Objective To describe national reoperation rates after elective and emergency colorectal resection and to assess the feasibility of using reoperation as a quality indicator derived from routinely collected data in England. Design Retrospective observational study of Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Setting HES dataset, an administrative dataset covering the entire English National Health Service. Participants All patients undergoing a primary colorectal resection in England between 2000 and 2008. Main outcome measures Reoperation after colorectal resection, defined as any reoperation for an intra-abdominal procedure or wound complication within 28 days of surgery on the index or subsequent admission to hospital. Results The national reoperation rate was 6.5% (15 986/246 469). A large degree of variation was identified among institutions and surgeons. Even among institutions and surgical teams with high caseloads, threefold and fivefold differences in reoperation rates were observed between the highest and lowest performing trusts and surgeons. Of the NHS trusts studied, 14.1% (22/156) had adjusted reoperation rates above the upper 99.8% control limit. Factors independently associated with higher risk of reoperation were diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.33 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.42), P<0.001), presence of multiple comorbidity (odds ratio 1.34 (1.29 to 1.39), P<0.001), social deprivation (1.14 (1.08 to 1.20) for most deprived, P<0.001), male sex (1.33 (1.29 to 1.38), P<0.001), rectal resection (1.63 (1.56 to 1.71), P<0.001), laparoscopic surgery (1.11 (1.03 to 1.20), P=0.006), and emergency admission (1.21 (1.17 to 1.26), P<0.001). Conclusions There is large variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery between hospitals and surgeons in England. If data accuracy can be assured, reoperation may allow performance to be checked against national standards from current routinely collected data, alongside other indicators such as mortality.

Introduction of laparoscopic bariatric surgery in England: observational population cohort study

Objectives To describe national trends in bariatric surgery and examine the factors influencing outcome in bariatric surgery in England. Design Observational population cohort study. Setting Hospital Episode Statistics database. Participants All patients who had primary gastric bypass, gastric banding, or sleeve gastrectomy procedures between April 2000 and March 2008. Main outcome measures 30 day mortality, mortality at one year after surgery, unplanned readmission to hospitalwithin 28 days, and duration of stay in hospital. Results 6953 primary bariatric procedures were carried out during the study period, of which 3649 were gastric band procedures, 3191 were gastric bypass procedures, and 113 were sleeve gastrectomy procedures. A marked increase occurred in the numbers of bariatric procedures done, from 238 in 2000 to 2543 in 2007, with an increase in the percentage of laparoscopic procedures over the study period (28% (66/238) laparoscopic procedures in 2000 compared with 74.5% (1894/2543) in 2007). Overall, 0.3% (19/6953) patients died within 30 days of surgery. The median length of stay in hospital was 3 (interquartile range 2-6) days. An unplanned readmission to hospital within 28 days of surgery occurred in 8% (556/6953) of procedures. No significant increase in mortality or unplanned readmission was seen over the study period, despite the exponential increase in minimal access surgery and consequently bariatric surgery. Conclusions Bariatric surgery has increased exponentially in England. Although postoperative weight loss and reoperation rates were not evaluated in this observational population cohort study, patients selected for gastric banding had lower postoperative mortality and readmission rates and a shorter length of stay than did those selected for gastric bypass.

Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: trends of utilization and associated outcomes in England.

Objective:To assess the trends in uptake of minimal invasive esophagectomy in England over the last 12 years (1996/1997–2007/2008) and to compare their clinical outcomes with those after open esophagectomy. Summary of Background Data:Around 7400 people are affected each year in the United Kingdom. Prognosis following esophageal resection is, however, poor. Even after “curative” surgery, 5-year survival rates do not exceed 25%. The minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy has attracted attention as a potentially less invasive alternative to conventional surgery. Methods:Data on patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were extracted from a national administrative database. The outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, 30-day in-hospital mortality, 30-day total (ie, in and out of hospital) mortality, 365-day total mortality, 28-day emergency readmission rates, and length of hospital stay. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify the effect of minimal invasive esophagectomy (MIE) on the outcomes after adjustment for age, gender, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidity. Results:A total of 18,673 esophagectomies were performed over the 12-year study period. The use of minimal access surgery increased exponentially over time (from 0.6% in 1996/1997 to 16.0% in 2007/2008). There was a suggestion that patients undergoing MIE had better 1-year survival rates than patients receiving open esophagectomy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.46–1.01, P = 0.058). Conclusion:The uptake of MIE in England is increasing exponentially. With the possible exception of 1-year survival, patients selected for MIE demonstrated similar mortality and length of stay outcomes when compared with those undergoing conventional surgery. These results need to be confirmed in large-scale randomized controlled trials.

Mortality in high-risk emergency general surgical admissions

There is increasing evidence of variable standards of care for patients undergoing emergency general surgery in the National Health Service (NHS). The aim of this study was to quantify and explore variability in mortality amongst high‐risk emergency general surgery admissions to English NHS hospital Trusts.

Traditional and laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: outcomes in English NHS hospitals between 1996 and 2006.

Objective:This study investigated length of stay, readmission rates, and postoperative mortality in adult patients undergoing traditional and laparoscopic appendectomy in England between April 1, 1996, and March 31, 2006. Methods:All procedures coded to the “H01—Emergency Excision of Appendix” procedure code in the Hospital Episode Statistics database were included. Multivariate analyses were used to identify independent predictors of length of hospital stay, 30-day and 365-day mortality. Results:A total of 259,735 procedures were assigned to the H01-Emergency excision of appendix OPCS-4 3-digit code procedure between 1996 and 2006. A laparoscopic technique was employed in 16,315 (6.3%). A greater proportion of deaths occurred in hospital within 30 days of “open” appendectomy surgery (0.25%) compared with procedures utilizing a laparoscopic technique (0.09%, P < 0.001). One-year mortality rates, measured over a 5-year period, were also higher after open surgery (0.64% vs. 0.29%, P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regressions demonstrated that an open operative technique, older age, male gender, and increasing comorbidity were strong independent determinants of early and 1-year postoperative mortality after emergency appendectomy. The duration of stay for patients undergoing open emergency appendectomy exceeded that for patients undergoing the laparoscopic technique (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing a laparoscopic technique were, however, more likely to be readmitted within 28 days of surgery (7.10% vs. 4.95%, P < 0.001). Conclusions:Laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and associated with lower postoperative mortality rates than open procedures. The cost implications are uncertain as this technique is associated with shorter hospital stay but higher subsequent readmission rates.