Article

A validated value-based model to improve hospital-wide perioperative outcomes: adaptability to combined medical/surgical inpatient cohorts.

Divisions of Quality/Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711, USA.
Annals of surgery (Impact Factor: 7.19). 09/2010; 252(3):486-96; discussion 496-8. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f1c412
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Authors hypothesized that building safe hospital systems to improve value-based surgical outcomes is predicated on workflow redesign for dynamic risk stratification, coupled with "real-time" mitigation of risk. We developed a comanagement model for hospitalized surgical cohort, and determined whether this iterative process redesign for surgery will be adaptable to disparate hospital systems and will be beneficial for combined medical/surgical adult inpatients.
Concerns about preventable harm in hospitalized patients have generated a plethora of both, process-driven and outcome-based strategies in US Healthcare. Although comparison between hospitals is a common mechanism to drive quality, other innovative approaches are needed for real-time risk mitigation to improve outcomes.
Prospective implementation of Surgical Continuum of Care (SCoC) model in hospitals initially for surgery patients; subsequently Continuum of Care (CoC) for medical/surgical population. Redesign of hospital care delivery model: patient cohorting, floor-based team building, and intensivist/hospitalist staffing of progressive care unit (PCU). Work flow redesign for clinical effectiveness: multidisciplinary team rounds, acuity stratified care rounding based on dynamic risk assessment into a novel HAWK (high risk)/DOVE (low risk) patient grouping, intensivist/hospitalist comanagement of surgical patients, and targeted response.
Pre- and postintervention with concurrent cohort control design.
Academic medical centers for SCoC and integrated health system hospital for CoC. PATIENT GROUPS: SCoC Pilot Study-Campus A: Preintervention control group 1998-2000, Intervention Group 2001-2004; Campus B: Comparator Control Group 1998-2004. SCoC Validation Study-Campus C: Preintervention Group 2001-2005; Intervention Group 2006-2008. CoC Study-Campus D: Hospital-wide Group 2009. METRICS: Mortality, length of stay (LOS): overall, surgical intensive care unit and PCU, readmission rates, and cost. Case mix index for risk adjustment.
Total >100,000 admissions. There was a significant reduction in overall surgical mortality in both, pilot (P < 0.002) and validation (P < 0.02) SCoC studies and overall hospital mortality in the medical/surgical CoC study (risk-adjusted mortality index progressively declined in CoC study from 1.16 pre-CoC to 0.77 six months post-CoC implementation; significant at 75% confidence level). Case mix index was unchanged during study period in each campus. Nested study in validation cohort of hospital-wide versus surgery alone (observed/expected mortality index) demonstrated significant benefit to SCoC in intervention group. The mortality benefit was primarily derived from risk-stratified rounding and actively managing risk prone population in the PCU. Surgical intensive care unit, PCU, and total hospital patient-days significantly decreased in SCoC pilot study (P < 0.05), reflecting enhanced throughput. LOS reduction benefit persisted in SCoC validation and CoC studies. In addition to decreased LOS, cost savings were in PCU (range, $851,511-2,007,388) and top diagnosis-related groups, for example, $452 K/yr for diagnosis-related group 148.
SCoC is patient-centered, outcomes-driven, value-based approach for hospital-wide surgical patient safety. The principles of this value paradigm are adaptable to other hospitals as demonstrated in our longitudinal study in 3 hospital systems, and the initial experience of CoC suggests that this model will have benefit beyond surgical hospital cohort.

0 Followers
 · 
127 Views
  • Source
    • "A modified early warning score (MEWS) was used to reflect the initial status of the screened patients. This variable was selected according to previous reports on screening at-risk patients (24-26). Continuous variables were tested using a two-tailed t-test for independent samples. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rapid response system (RRS) is an innovative system designed for in-hospital, at-risk patients but underutilization of the RRS generally results in unexpected cardiopulmonary arrests. We implemented an extended RRS (E-RRS) that was triggered by actively screening at-risk patients prior to calls from primary medical attendants. These patients were identified from laboratory data, emergency consults, and step-down units. A four-member rapid response team was assembled that included an ICU staff, and the team visited the patients more than twice per day for evaluation, triage, and treatment of the patients with evidence of acute physiological decline. The goal was to provide this treatment before the team received a call from the patient's primary physician. We sought to describe the effectiveness of the E-RRS at preventing sudden and unexpected arrests and in-hospital mortality. Over the 1-yr intervention period, 2,722 patients were screened by the E-RRS program from 28,661 admissions. There were a total of 1,996 E-RRS activations of simple consultations for invasive procedures. After E-RRS implementation, the mean hospital code rate decreased by 31.1% and the mean in-hospital mortality rate was reduced by 15.3%. In conclusion, the implementation of E-RRS is associated with a reduction in the in-hospital code and mortality rates. Graphical Abstract
    Journal of Korean medical science 03/2014; 29(3):423-30. DOI:10.3346/jkms.2014.29.3.423 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Mortality was most frequently defined as occurring 'in-hospital' (n = 35; 95%), although seven studies looked at death within other periods after discharge (thirty days, sixty days, six months, and one year; 19% overall). Seven of the thirty-five evaluations reported significant declines (20%) in mortality rates among hospitalist providers, including two quasi-experimental studies [49,54] and five observational studies [57,67,83,85,86]. Readmissions, usually to the same facility, were examined in 43 evaluations (within seventy-two hours; seven, ten, fourteen, or thirty days; and one year), with the majority finding no differences between providers (n = 34; 79%). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite more than a decade of research on hospitalists and their performance, disagreement still exists regarding whether and how hospital-based physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery. This systematic review summarizes the findings from 65 comparative evaluations to determine whether hospitalists provide a higher quality of inpatient care relative to traditional inpatient physicians who maintain hospital privileges with concurrent outpatient practices. Articles on hospitalist performance published between January 1996 and December 2010 were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and a hand-search of reference lists, key journals and editorials. Comparative evaluations presenting original, quantitative data on processes, efficiency or clinical outcome measures of care between hospitalists, community-based physicians and traditional academic attending physicians were included (n = 65). After proposing a conceptual framework for evaluating inpatient physician performance, major findings on quality are summarized according to their percentage change, direction and statistical significance. The majority of reviewed articles demonstrated that hospitalists are efficient providers of inpatient care on the basis of reductions in their patients' average length of stay (69%) and total hospital costs (70%); however, the clinical quality of hospitalist care appears to be comparable to that provided by their colleagues. The methodological quality of hospitalist evaluations remains a concern and has not improved over time. Persistent issues include insufficient reporting of source or sample populations (n = 30), patients lost to follow-up (n = 42) and estimates of effect or random variability (n = 35); inappropriate use of statistical tests (n = 55); and failure to adjust for established confounders (n = 37). Future research should include an expanded focus on the specific structures of care that differentiate hospitalists from other inpatient physician groups as well as the development of better conceptual and statistical models that identify and measure underlying mechanisms driving provider-outcome associations in quality.
    BMC Medicine 05/2011; 9:58. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-9-58 · 7.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March 2010, has led to sweeping changes to the US health care system. The ensuing pace of change in health care regulation is unparalleled and difficult for physicians to keep up with. Because of the extraordinary challenges that have arisen, the public policy committee of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary tract conducted a symposium at their 52nd Annual Meeting in May 2011 to educate participants on the myriad of public policy changes occurring in order to best prepare them for their future. Expert speakers presented their views on policy changes affecting diverse areas including patient safety, patient experience, hospital and provider fiscal challenges, and the life of the practicing surgeon. In all areas, surgical leadership was felt to be critical to successfully navigate the new health care landscape as surgeons have a long history of providing safe, high quality, low cost care. The recognition of shared values among the diverse constituents affected by health care policy changes will best prepare surgeons to control their own destiny and successfully manage new challenges as they emerge.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 03/2012; 16(5):927-34. DOI:10.1007/s11605-012-1833-6 · 2.39 Impact Factor
Show more