Article

Routine leak testing in colorectal surgery in the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.

University of Washington, Department of Surgery and Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.3). 04/2012; 147(4):345-51. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.12
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the effect of routine anastomotic leak testing (performed to screen for leaks) vs selective testing (performed to evaluate for a suspected leak in a higher-risk or technically difficult anastomosis) on outcomes in colorectal surgery because the value of provocative testing of colorectal anastomoses as a quality improvement metric has yet to be determined.
Observational, prospectively designed cohort study.
Data from Washington state's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP).
Patients undergoing elective left-sided colon or rectal resections at 40 SCOAP hospitals from October 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009.
Use of leak testing, distinguishing procedures that were performed at hospitals where leak testing was selective (<90% use) or routine (≥ 90% use) in a given calendar quarter.
Adjusted odds ratio of a composite adverse event (CAE) (unplanned postoperative intervention and/or in-hospital death) at routine testing hospitals.
Among 3449 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.8 [14.8] years; 55.0% women), the CAE rate was 5.5%. Provocative leak testing increased (from 56% in the starting quarter to 76% in quarter 16) and overall rates of CAE decreased (from 7.0% in the starting quarter to 4.6% in quarter 16; both P ≤ .01) over time. Among patients at hospitals that performed routine leak testing, we found a reduction of more than 75% in the adjusted risk of CAEs (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.99).
Routine leak testing of left-sided colorectal anastomoses appears to be associated with a reduced rate of CAEs within the SCOAP network and meets many of the criteria of a worthwhile quality improvement metric.

0 Followers
 · 
113 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prospective registry of spine surgery. To identify variation in utilization, processes of care, and outcomes in spine surgery to improve statewide quality and safety. Variability in the utilization and outcomes of elective spine surgery across different regions in the United States and internationally has become a growing focus of critical evaluation. In 2011, surgeons in Washington State created the Spine Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program to address variability in use, process, and outcome of spine surgery. Prospective cohort study from consecutive spine fusion cases and 30% sampling of other spine procedures from up to 20 hospitals (2011-2013). Logistic regression models were developed using data from 10 quarters to determine factors associated with combined adverse events inclusive of index hospital death, reintervention, and adverse events not requiring intervention, and then applied to patients in the last 2 quarters. A total of 10,166 (58.9 ± 13.4 yr, 52.2% females) underwent surgery including 3767 (37%) lumbar and 6399 (63%) cervical procedures. Of the total, 75.3% of the cohort had a spine fusion and among those, neurological symptoms were described in 92.5% of patients, with baseline limb pain numeric rating scale (NRS) scores of 5.9 among those classified as having neurological symptoms. The NRS mean score for back pain was 5.9 with a mean Oswestry Disability Index/Neck Disability Index of 44. There was significant intersite variation in rates of cigarette smoking among patients undergoing fusion surgery (range, 0%-40%) and rates of combined adverse events with 10 hospitals having a significantly lower observed/expected ratio and 3 having a significantly greater observed to expected ratio. Spine Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program identified significant variability in the indications, process of care, and outcomes related to spine surgery. This variability indicates the need for continued surveillance initiatives and point to opportunities for quality improvement and research. 2.
    Spine 01/2014; 40(5):1. DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000750
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is increasing pressure from the public and insurance payors for transparency and accountability in ensuring the quality of health care. In response to this, hospitals are now mandated to participate in quality improvement initiatives, and to report on their performance. This article describes three programs related to the measurement of quality that impact colon and rectal surgery: the Surgical Care Improvement Project, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, and the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.
    Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery 03/2014; 27(1):10-13. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1366913
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although biliary complications (BCs) have a significant impact on the outcome of liver transplantation (LT), variation in BC rates among transplant centers has not been previously analyzed. BC rate, LT outcome and spending were assessed using linked Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Medicare claims (n = 16 286 LTs). Transplant centers were assigned to BC quartiles based upon risk-adjusted observed to expected (O:E) ratio of BC separately for donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. The median incidence of BC was 300% greater in the highest versus lowest DBD quartiles (19.0% vs. 5.9%) and varied 250% between DCD quartiles (20.3%-8.4%). Donor and recipient characteristics suggest that high BC centers actually used lower donor risk index organs, fewer split livers and fewer imports (p < 0.001 for all). Transplant at a center in the highest O:E quartile was associated with increased posttransplant mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.53, p = 0.007) in DCD transplant and increased graft loss (aHR 1.21, p = 0.02) in DBD transplant. Medicare spending was $22 895 (p < 0.0001) higher at centers in highest versus lowest BC quartile. In summary, BC rates vary widely among transplant centers and higher rates are a marker for an increased risk of death, graft failure and health-care spending. © Copyright 2014 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
    American Journal of Transplantation 01/2015; 15(1):170-9. DOI:10.1111/ajt.12970