Failure to Rescue Patients After Reintervention in Gastroesophageal Cancer Surgery in England
(Impact Factor: 3.94).
03/2013; 148(3):272-6. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.791
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.
Available from: Lixin Ou
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite the increased acceptance of failure-to-rescue (FTR) as an important patient safety indicator (defined as the percentage of deaths among surgical patients with treatable complications), there has not been any large epidemiological study reporting FTR in an Australian setting nor any evaluation on its suitability as a performance indicator.
We conducted a population-based study on elective surgical patients from 82 public acute hospitals in New South Wales, Australia between 2002 and 2009, exploring the trends and variations in rates of hospital complications, FTR and 30-day mortality. We used Poisson regression models to derive relative risk ratios (RRs) after adjusting for a range of patient and hospital characteristics.
The average rates of complications, FTR and 30-day mortality were 13.8 per 1000 admissions, 14.1% and 6.1 per 1000 admission, respectively. The rates of complications and 30-day mortality were stable throughout the study period however there was a significant decrease in FTR rate after 2006, coinciding with the establishment of national and state-level peak patient safety agencies. There were marked variations in the three rates within the top 20% of hospitals (best) and bottom 20% of hospitals (worst) for each of the four peer-hospital groups. The group comprising the largest volume hospitals (principal referral/teaching hospitals) had a significantly higher rate of FTR in comparison to the other three groups of smaller-sized peer hospital groups (RR = 0.78, 0.57, and 0.61, respectively). Adjusted rates of complications, FTR and 30-day mortality varied widely for individual surgical procedures between the best and worst quintile hospitals within the principal referral hospital group.
The decrease in FTR rate over the study period appears to be associated with a wide range of patient safety programs. The marked variations in the three rates between- and within- peer hospital groups highlight the potential for further quality improvement intervention opportunities.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To assess in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing many commonly performed urological surgeries in light of decreasing nationwide perioperative mortality over the past decade. This phenomenon has been attributed in part to a decline in ‘failure to rescue’ (FTR) rates, e.g. death after a complication that was potentially recognisable/preventable.Patients and Methods
Discharges of all patients undergoing urological surgery between 1998 and 2010 were extracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and assessed for overall and FTR mortality. Admission trends were assessed with linear regression. Logistic regression models fitted with generalised estimating equations were used to estimate the impact of primary predictors on over-all and FTR mortality and changes in mortality rates.ResultsBetween 1998 and 2010, an estimated 7 725 736 urological surgeries requiring hospitalisation were performed in the USA; admissions for urological surgery decreased 0.63% per year (P = 0.008). Odds of overall mortality decreased slightly (odds ratio [OR] 0.990, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.988-0.993), yet the odds of mortality attributable to FTR increased 5% every year (OR 1.050, 95% CI 1.038-1.062). Patient age, race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, public insurance status, as well as urban hospital location were independent predictors of FTR mortality (P < 0.001).ConclusionA shift from inpatient to outpatient surgery for commonly performed urological procedures has coincided with increasing rates of FTR mortality. Older, sicker, minority group patients and those with public insurance were more likely to die after a potentially recognisable/preventable complication. These strata of high-risk individuals represent ideal targets for process improvement initiatives.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
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.
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.