Can we predict unplanned hospital readmission after colectomy for ulcerative colitis and indeterminate colitis?
Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. The American surgeon
(Impact Factor: 0.82).
Unplanned readmission (UR) is considered to be an index of quality surgical care. We examined whether any perioperative factor was associated with UR after colectomy for ulcerative colitis (UC) or indeterminate colitis (IC). Patients undergoing a two-stage or three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis were included. Patient, disease, and surgical factors were collected. UR occurring within 30 days of hospital discharge was assessed. The 202 study patients had a median age of 38 years. Median body mass index was 22. There were 130 (64%) UC patients and 72 (36%) IC patients. Indications for surgery were medically refractory disease (n = 176, 87%) and dysplasia/cancer (n = 26, 13%). Preoperative medical therapy included steroids alone in 25 patients and steroids combined with other immunomodulators in 151 patients. A two-stage and three-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis was used in 146 (72%) and 56 (28%) patients, respectively. Median white blood cell count before discharge was 8600 cells/mm3. Median length of stay after surgery was 7 days. Complications before discharge were observed in 28 patients (14%). Thirty-eight patients (19%) had a UR. No preoperative or surgical factor was associated with UR. Although UR occurs frequently (19%) after colectomy for UC or IC, it cannot be predicted.
Available from: Joshua Ryan Vest
- "A second general viewpoint is that preventable readmissions are not about the quality of care [33,36]. Preventable readmissions are more about the person receiving care [24,29,44-46,48,55] and the viewpoint is marked by phrases like 'unpredictable sequel'  and 'cannot be predicted' [24,36]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hospital readmissions are a leading topic of healthcare policy and practice reform because they are common, costly, and potentially avoidable events. Hospitals face the prospect of reduced or eliminated reimbursement for an increasing number of preventable readmissions under nationwide cost savings and quality improvement efforts. To meet the current changes and future expectations, organizations are looking for potential strategies to reduce readmissions. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to determine what factors are associated with preventable readmissions.
We conducted a review of the English language medicine, health, and health services research literature (2000 to 2009) for research studies dealing with unplanned, avoidable, preventable, or early readmissions. Each of these modifying terms was included in keyword searches of readmissions or rehospitalizations in Medline, ISI, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, ProQuest Health Management, and PAIS International. Results were limited to US adult populations.
The review included 37 studies with significant variation in index conditions, readmitting conditions, timeframe, and terminology. Studies of cardiovascular-related readmissions were most common, followed by all cause readmissions, other surgical procedures, and other specific-conditions. Patient-level indicators of general ill health or complexity were the commonly identified risk factors. While more than one study demonstrated preventable readmissions vary by hospital, identification of many specific organizational level characteristics was lacking.
The current literature on preventable readmissions in the US contains evidence from a variety of patient populations, geographical locations, healthcare settings, study designs, clinical and theoretical perspectives, and conditions. However, definitional variations, clear gaps, and methodological challenges limit translation of this literature into guidance for the operation and management of healthcare organizations. We recommend that those organizations that propose to reward reductions in preventable readmissions invest in additional research across multiple hospitals in order to fill this serious gap in knowledge of great potential value to payers, providers, and patients.
Implementation Science 11/2010; 5(1):88. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-5-88 · 4.12 Impact Factor
Available from: ucsf.edu
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Advances in conventional therapy, novel targets and therapeutic goals are the highlights of treatment for ulcerative colitis in the last year. There have also been disappointments. This review summarizes the highs and lows, with an emphasis on strategy as opposed to seeking the newest treatment option.
In conventional therapy, once daily therapy for 5-aminosalicylic acid is generally sufficient. Furthermore, a new 5-aminosalicylic acid (mesalamine MMX) has been released that effectively induces and maintains remission. There have been reappraisals of immunomodulators and further evaluation of (yes, now conventional!) infliximab for ulcerative colitis. Opportunistic infections, long-term outcomes and the burden of disease are being characterized. New therapeutic targets included an antibody against T cells (anti-CD3), but trials on visilizumab for acute severe colitis have been suspended. T-cell costimulation, phosphatidylcholine to promote barrier function, new anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, B-cell (anti-CD20) depletion and complementary therapies represent new therapeutic horizons. International agreement is needed on activity indices, definitions of remission, therapeutic goals (including mucosal healing) and outcomes that matter to patients, so that trials can be compared.
Advances will take time to alter mainstream practice, but 2007-2008 is the year of organized strategies, with European, American and British guidelines on ulcerative colitis published or in press. These should be the platform for better outcomes for patients.
Current opinion in gastroenterology 08/2008; 24(4):469-74. DOI:10.1097/MOG.0b013e3282ff0dd5 · 4.29 Impact Factor
Available from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We previously developed an intraoperative 10-point Surgical Apgar Score-based on blood loss, lowest heart rate, and lowest mean arterial pressure-to predict major complications after colorectal resection. However, because complications often arise after uncomplicated hospitalizations, we sought to evaluate whether this intraoperative metric would predict postdischarge complications after colectomy.
We linked our institution's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database with an Anesthesia Intraoperative Management System for all colorectal resections over 4 years. Using Chi-square trend tests and logistic regression, we evaluated the Surgical Apgar Score's prediction for major postoperative complications before and after discharge.
Among 795 colectomies, there were 230 (29%) major complications within 30 days; 45 (20%) after uncomplicated discharges. Surgical Apgar Scores predicted both inpatient complications and late postdischarge complications (both P < .0001). Late complications occurred from 0 to 27 (median, 11) days after discharge; the most common were surgical site infections (42%), sepsis (24%), and venous thromboembolism (16%). In pairwise comparisons against average-scoring patients (Surgical Apgar Scores, 7-8), the relative risk of postdischarge complications trended lower, to 0.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-1.7) for those with the best scores (9-10); and were significantly higher, at 2.6 (95% CI, 1.4-4.9) for scores 5-6, and 4.5 (95% CI, 1.8-11.0) for scores 0-4.
The intraoperative Surgical Apgar Score remained a useful metric for predicting postcolectomy complications arising after uncomplicated discharges. Even late complications may thus be related to intraoperative condition and events. Surgeons could use this intraoperative metric to target low-scoring patients for intensive postdischarge surveillance and mitigation of postdischarge complications after colectomy.
Surgery 03/2010; 148(3):559-66. DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2010.01.015 · 3.38 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.