Article

Failure to rescue patients after reintervention in gastroesophageal cancer surgery in England.

JAMA SURGERY (Impact Factor: 4.3). 03/2013; 148(3):272-6. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.791
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Followers
 · 
60 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The use of postoperative complication rates to derive metrics such as failure-to-rescue (FTR) is of increasing interest in assessing the quality of care. The aim of this study was to quantify FTR rates for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in England using administrative data, and to examine its validity against case-note review.MethodsA retrospective observational study using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data was combined with a multicentre audit of data quality. All elective AAA repairs done in England between 2005 and 2010 were identified. Postoperative complications were extracted, FTR rates quantified, and differences in FTR and in-hospital death rates established. A multicentre case-note review was performed to establish the accuracy of coding of complications, and the impact of inaccuracies on FTR rates derived from HES data.ResultsA total of 19 638 elective AAA repairs were identified from HES; the overall mortality rate was 4·6 per cent. Patients with complications (19·2 per cent) were more likely to die than those without complications (odds ratio 12·22, 95 per cent c.i. 10·51 to 14·21; P < 0·001) and had longer hospital stays (P < 0·001). FTR rates correlated strongly with death rates, whereas complication rates did not. On case-note review (661 procedures), 41·5 per cent of patients had a complication recorded in the case notes. There was evidence of systematic under-reporting of complications in HES, leading to an overall misclassification rate of 36·3 (95 per cent c.i. 33·7 to 39·2) per cent (P < 0·001), which was less pronounced for surgical complications (12·6 (11·1 to 13·9) per cent; P <0·001). Despite this, the majority of FTR rates derived from HES were not significantly different from those derived from case-note data.Conclusion Postoperative complication and FTR rates after elective AAA repair can be derived from HES data. However, use of the metric for interprovider comparisons should be done cautiously, and only with concurrent case-note validation given the degree of miscoding identified.
    British Journal of Surgery 09/2014; 101(12). DOI:10.1002/bjs.9633 · 5.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the wide acceptance of Failure-to-Rescue (FTR) as a patient safety indicator (defined as the deaths among surgical patients with treatable complications), no study has explored the geographic variation of FTR in a large health jurisdiction. Our study aimed to explore the spatiotemporal variations of FTR rates across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. We conducted a population-based study using all admitted surgical patients in public acute hospitals during 2002-2009 in NSW, Australia. We developed a spatiotemporal Poisson model using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) methods in a Bayesian framework to obtain area-specific adjusted relative risk. Local Government Area (LGA) was chosen as the areal unit. LGA-aggregated covariates included age, gender, socio-economic and remoteness index scores, distance between patient residential postcode and the treating hospital, and a quadratic time trend. We studied 4,285,494 elective surgical admissions in 82 acute public hospitals over eight years in NSW. Around 14% of patients who developed at least one of the six FTR-related complications (58,590) died during hospitalization. Of 153 LGAs, patients who lived in 31 LGAs, accommodating 48% of NSW patients at risk, were exposed to an excessive adjusted FTR risk (10% to 50%) compared to the state-average. They were mostly located in state's centre and western Sydney. Thirty LGAs with a lower adjusted FTR risk (10% to 30%), accommodating 8% of patients at risk, were mostly found in the southern parts of NSW and Sydney east and south. There were significant spatiotemporal variations of FTR rates across NSW over an eight-year span. Areas identified with significantly high and low FTR risks provide potential opportunities for policy-makers, clinicians and researchers to learn from the success or failure of adopting the best care for surgical patients and build a self-learning organisation and health system.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10-10):e109807. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0109807 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background “Unplanned reoperations” has been advocated as a quality measure in colorectal cancer surgery as it is correlated with complications and postoperative mortality at a patient level. However, little is known about the relation between reoperation rates and postoperative mortality rates at a hospital level. Methods Data were derived from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit 2009–2012 database. Hospitals with significantly higher and lower reoperation rates than average were identified and grouped accordingly. Postoperative mortality rates were compared between the groups. Results Some 28,667 patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer resections in 92 hospitals were analyzed. Fourteen hospitals had significantly higher (mean 14.6%) adjusted reoperation rates than average (10%), 20 had lower (5.3%) rates than average. Adjusted mortality rates were similar in groups with high reoperation rates and the majority cohort (3.5–3.2%) and significantly lower in hospitals with low reoperation rates (2.3%). However, individual hospitals with relatively high reoperation rates had low mortality rates and vice versa. Conclusions Reoperation rates after elective colorectal cancer resections varied. Hospitals with significantly higher reoperation rates than average did not have higher mortality rates. The group with lowest reoperation rates also had lower postoperative mortality rates; however, this did not apply to all hospitals in the group. In conclusion, ‘reoperations’ seems suitable as benchmark information to hospitals but less suitable to detect poor performers. Best practices should be identified as hospitals with both low reoperation- and mortality rates.
    European Journal of Surgical Oncology 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2014.08.473 · 2.89 Impact Factor