Ravikrishna Mamidanna

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.

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.

Value of failure to rescue as a marker of the standard of care following reoperation for complications after colorectal resection

Complication management appears to be of vital importance to differences in survival following surgery between surgical units. Failure‐to‐rescue (FTR) rates have not yet distinguished surgical from general medical complications. The aim of this study was to assess whether variability exists in FTR rates after reoperation for serious surgical complications following colorectal cancer resections in England.

Is It Time to Centralize High-risk Cancer Care in the United States? Comparison of Outcomes of Esophagectomy Between England and the United States.

OBJECTIVE To determine the difference in in-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS) after esophagectomy between the United States and England. BACKGROUND Since 2001, complex procedures such as esophagectomy have been centralized in England, but in the United States no formal plan for centralization exists. METHODS Patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between 2005 and 2010 were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (United States) and the Hospital Episodes Statistics (England). In-hospital mortality and LOS were compared. RESULTS There were 7433 esophagectomies performed in 66 English hospitals and 5858 resections in 775 US hospitals; median number of resections per center per year was 17.5 in England and 2 in the United States. In-hospital mortality was greater in US hospitals (5.50% vs 4.20%, P = 0.001). In multiple regression analysis, predictors of mortality included patient age, comorbidities, hospital volume, and surgery performed in the United States [odds ratio (OR) = 1.20 (1.02-1.41), P = 0.03]. Median LOS was greater in the English hospitals (15 vs 12 days, P < 0.001). However, when subset analysis was done on high-volume centers in both health systems, mortality was significantly better in US hospitals (2.10% vs 3.50%, P = 0.02). LOS was also seen to decrease in the US high-volume centers but not in England. CONCLUSIONS The findings from this international comparison suggest that centralization of high-risk cancer surgery to centers of excellence with a high procedural volume translates into an improved clinical outcome. These findings should be factored into discussions regarding future service configuration of major cancer surgery in the United States.

Poor 1-year survival in elderly patients undergoing nonelective colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal resection in elderly patients is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in an emergency setting. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to quantify the risks associated with nonelective colorectal resection up to 1 year after surgery in elderly patients. DESIGN: This is a population-based observational study. SETTING: Data were obtained from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. POPULATION: All patients aged 70 years and older who underwent a nonelective colorectal resection in an English National Health Service Trust hospital between April 2001 and March 2008 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were 30-day in hospital mortality, 365-day mortality, unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge, and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: During the study period, 36,767 nonelective colorectal resections were performed in patients aged ≥70 years in England. Patients were classified into 3 age groups: A (70–75 years), B (76–80 years), and C (>80 years). Thirty-day mortality was 17.0%, 23.3%, and 31.0% in groups A, B, and C (p < 0.001). The overall 30-day medical complication rate was 33.7%, and the reoperation rate was 6.3%. Cardiac and respiratory complications were significantly higher in group C (22.2% and 18.2%, p < 0.001). Mortality in Group C was 51.2% at 1-year postsurgery. Advanced age was an independent determinant of mortality in risk-adjusted regression analyses. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database. Stage of disease at presentation, severity of complications, and cause of death cannot be ascertained from this database. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, half of all English patients aged over 80 years undergoing nonelective colorectal resection died within 1 year of surgery. Further research is required to identify perioperative and postdischarge strategies that may improve survival in this vulnerable cohort.

Population-based cohort study comparing 30- and 90-day institutional mortality rates after colorectal surgery.

Surgical mortality results are increasingly being reported and published in the public domain as indicators of surgical quality. This study examined how mortality outlier status at 90 days after colorectal surgery compares with mortality at 30 days and subsequent intervals in the first year after surgery.

Surgeon Volume and Cancer Esophagectomy, Gastrectomy, and Pancreatectomy: A Population-based Study in England.

Objective:The aim of the study was to assess whether there is a proficiency curve-like relationship between surgeon volume and operative mortality and determine the minimum surgeon volume for optimum operative mortality. Background:The inverse relationship between hospital volume and operative mortality is well-established for esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer. The recommended minimum surgeon volumes are however uncertain. Methods:We retrieved data on esophagectomies, gastrectomies, and pancreatectomies for cancer from the NHS Hospital Episodes Statistics database from April 2000 to March 2010. We defined mortality as in-hospital death within 30 days of surgery. We determined whether there was a proficiency curve relationship by inspecting surgeon volume-mortality graphs after adjusting for patient age, sex, socioeconomic, and comorbidity indices. We then statistically determined the minimum surgeon volume that produced a mortality rate insignificantly different from the optimum of the curve. Results:Sixteen thousand five hundred seventy-two esophagectomies, 12,622 gastrectomies, and 9116 pancreatectomies were examined. Surgeon volume ranged from 2 to 29 esophagectomies, from 1 to 14 gastrectomies, and from 2 to 31 pancreatectomies per surgeon per year. We demonstrated a proficiency relationship between surgeon volume and mortality in esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer surgery. Each additional case of esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy would reduce 30-day mortality odds by 3.4%, 7.2%, and 4.1%, respectively. However, as surgeon volume increased, mortality rate continued to improve. Therefore, we were unable to recommend minimum surgeon volume. Conclusions:Mortality after resections for esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer falls as surgeon volume rises up to 30 cases. Within this range, we did not demonstrate any statistical threshold that could be recommended as a minimum volume target.

Failure to Rescue Patients After Reintervention in Gastroesophageal Cancer Surgery in England

IMPORTANCE Gastroesophageal cancer resections are associated with significant reintervention and perioperative mortality rates. OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes following operative and nonoperative reinterventions between high- and low-mortality gastroesophageal cancer surgical units in England. DESIGN All elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer between 2000 and 2010 in English public hospitals were identified from a national administrative database. Units were divided into low- and high-mortality units (LMUs and HMUs, respectively) using a threshold of 5% or less for 30-day adjusted mortality. The groups were compared for reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications. SETTING Both LMUs and HMUs. PARTICIPANTS Patients who underwent esophageal and gastric resections for cancer. EXPOSURE Elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer, with reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Failure to rescue is defined as the death of a patient following a complication; failure to rescue-surgical is defined as the death of a patient following reoperation for a surgical complication. RESULTS There were 14 955 esophagectomies and 10 671 gastrectomies performed in 141 units. For gastroesophageal resections combined, adjusted mortality rates were 3.0% and 8.3% (P < .001) for LMUs and HMUs, respectively. Complications rates preceding reoperation were similar (5.4% for LMUs vs. 4.9% for HMUs; P = .11). The failure to rescue-surgical rates were lower in LMUs than in HMUs (15.3% vs. 24.1%; P < .001). The LMUs performed more nonoperative reinterventions than the HMUs did (6.7% vs. 4.7%; P < .001), with more patients surviving in LMUs than in HMUs (failure to rescue rate, 7.0% vs. 12.5%; P < .001). Overall, LMUs reintervened more than HMUs did (12.2% vs 9.6%; P < .001), and LMUs had lower failure to rescue rates following reintervention than HMUs did (9.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .001). All P values stated refer to 2-sided values. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Overall, LMUs were more likely to reintervene and rescue patients following gastroesophageal cancer resections in England. Patients were more likely to survive following both reoperations and nonsurgical interventions in LMUs.

Is 30‐day mortality an appropriate measure of risk in elderly patients undergoing elective colorectal resection?

Aim  The study aimed to define mortality in the elderly following elective colorectal resection and to identify the most meaningful postoperative period to report mortality rates in this group of patients.

Hierarchical multilevel analysis of increased caseload volume and postoperative outcome after elective colorectal surgery

The study aimed to explore the impact of surgeon and institution volume on outcome following colorectal surgery in England using multilevel hierarchical analysis.