Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Compliance with evidence-based guidelines in traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been proposed as a marker of hospital quality. However, the association between hospital-level compliance rates and risk-adjusted clinical outcomes for patients with TBI remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE:To examine whether hospital-level compliance with the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy is associated with risk-adjusted mortality rates for patients with severe TBI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:All adult patients (N = 734) who presented to a regional consortium of 14 hospitals from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2010, with severe TBI (ie, blunt head trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale score of <9, and abnormal intracranial findings from computed tomography of the head). Data analysis took place from December 2013 through January 2015. We used hierarchical mixed-effects models to assess the association between hospital-level compliance with Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines and mortality rates after adjusting for patient-level demographics, severity of trauma (eg, mechanism of injury and Injury Severity Score), and TBI-specific variables (eg, cranial nerve reflexes and findings from computed tomography of the head). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/METHODS:Hospital-level risk-adjusted inpatient mortality rate and hospital-level compliance with Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy. RESULTS:Unadjusted mortality rates varied by site from 20.0% to 50.0% (median, 42.6; interquartile range, 35.5-46.2); risk-adjusted rates varied from 24.3% to 56.7% (median, 41.1; interquartile range, 36.4-47.8). Overall, only 338 of 734 patients (46.1%) with an appropriate indication underwent placement of an intracranial pressure monitor and only 134 of 335 (45.6%) underwent craniotomy. Hospital-level compliance ranged from 9.6% to 65.2% for intracranial pressure monitoring and 6.7% to 76.2% for craniotomy. Despite widespread variation in compliance across hospitals, we found no association between hospital-level compliance rates and risk-adjusted patient outcomes (Spearman ρ = 0.030 [P = .92] for ICP monitoring and Spearman ρ = -0.066 [P = .83] for craniotomy). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Hospital-level compliance with evidence-based guidelines has minimal association with risk-adjusted outcomes in patients with severe TBI. Our results suggest that caution should be taken before using compliance with these measures as independent quality metrics. Given the complexity of TBI care, outcomes-based metrics, including functional recovery, may be more accurate than current process measures at determining hospital quality.

BACKGROUND:Appendectomy remains the gold standard in the treatment of acute, uncomplicated appendicitis in the United States. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that nonoperative management is safe and efficacious. METHODS:We constructed a decision tree to compare nonoperative management of appendicitis with laparoscopic appendectomy in otherwise healthy adults. Model variables were abstracted from a literature review, data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data, the Medicare Physician Fee schedule, and the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator. Uncertainty surrounding parameters of the model was assessed via 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:Operative management cost $12,213 per patient. Nonoperative management without interval appendectomy (IA) was the dominant strategy, costing $1,865 less and producing 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Nonoperative management with IA cost $4,271 more than operative management, but yielded only 0.01 additional QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested operative management would become the preferred strategy if the recurrence rate was >40.5% or the total cost of appendectomy was decreased to <$5,468. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed nonoperative management without IA was the preferred strategy in 95.6% of cases. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Nonoperative management without IA is the least costly, most effective treatment for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis and warrants further evaluation in a disease thought to be definitively surgical.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services include patient experience as a core component of its Value-Based Purchasing program, which ties financial incentives to hospital performance on a range of quality measures. However, it remains unclear whether patient satisfaction is an accurate marker of high-quality surgical care. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether hospital performance on a patient satisfaction survey is associated with objective measures of surgical quality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Retrospective observational study of participating American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS NSQIP) hospitals. We used data from a linked database of Medicare inpatient claims, ACS NSQIP, the American Hospital Association annual survey, and Hospital Compare from December 2, 2004, through December 31, 2008. A total of 103 866 patients older than 65 years undergoing inpatient surgery were included. Hospitals were grouped by quartile based on their performance on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. Controlling for preoperative risk factors, we created hierarchical logistic regression models to predict the occurrence of adverse postoperative outcomes based on a hospital's patient satisfaction scores. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/METHODS:Thirty-day postoperative mortality, major and minor complications, failure to rescue, and hospital readmission. RESULTS:Of the 180 hospitals, the overall mean patient satisfaction score was 68.0% (first quartile mean, 58.7%; fourth quartile mean, 76.7%). Compared with patients treated at hospitals in the lowest quartile, those at the highest quartile had significantly lower risk-adjusted odds of death (odds ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.99), failure to rescue (odds ratio = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96), and minor complication (odds ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99). This translated to relative risk reductions of 11.1% (P = .04), 12.6% (P = .02), and 11.5% (P = .04), respectively. No significant relationship was noted between patient satisfaction and either major complication or hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Using a national sample of hospitals, we demonstrated a significant association between patient satisfaction scores and several objective measures of surgical quality. Our findings suggest that payment policies that incentivize better patient experience do not require hospitals to sacrifice performance on other quality measures.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To define the target domains of culture-improvement interventions, to assess the impact of these interventions on surgical culture and to determine whether culture improvements lead to better patient outcomes and improved healthcare efficiency. BACKGROUND:Healthcare systems are investing considerable resources in improving workplace culture. It remains unclear whether these interventions, when aimed at surgical care, are successful and whether they are associated with changes in patient outcomes. METHODS:PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched from January 1980 to January 2015. We included studies on interventions that aimed to improve surgical culture, defined as the interpersonal, social and organisational factors that affect the healthcare environment and patient care. The quality of studies was assessed using an adapted tool to focus the review on higher-quality studies. Due to study heterogeneity, findings were narratively reviewed. FINDINGS/RESULTS:The 47 studies meeting inclusion criteria (4 randomised trials and 10 moderate-quality observational studies) reported on interventions that targeted three domains of culture: teamwork (n=28), communication (n=26) and safety climate (n=19); several targeted more than one domain. All moderate-quality studies showed improvements in at least one of these domains. Two studies also demonstrated improvements in patient outcomes, such as reduced postoperative complications and even reduced postoperative mortality (absolute risk reduction 1.7%). Two studies reported improvements in healthcare efficiency, including fewer operating room delays. These findings were supported by similar results from low-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS:The literature provides promising evidence for various strategies to improve surgical culture, although these approaches differ in terms of the interventions employed as well as the techniques used to measure culture. Nevertheless, culture improvement appears to be associated with other positive effects, including better patient outcomes and enhanced healthcare efficiency. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:CRD42013005987.

BACKGROUND:The use of post-acute care is common among the elderly and accounts for $62 billion in annual Medicare expenditures. However, little is known about post-acute care use after surgery. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Data were merged between the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and Medicare claims for 2005 to 2008. Post-acute care use, including skilled nursing facilities (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF), and home health care (HHC) were analyzed for 3 operations: colectomy, pancreatectomy, and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Controlling for both preoperative risk factors and the occurrence of postoperative complications, we used multinomial logistic regression to estimate the odds of use for each type of post-acute care after elective surgery compared with home discharge. RESULTS:Post-acute care was used frequently for patients undergoing colectomy (40.0%; total n=10,932), pancreatectomy (46.0%; total n=2,144), and open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (44.9%; total n=1,736). Home health was the most frequently reported post-acute care service for each operation (range 23.2% to 31.5%) followed by SNF (range 12.0% to 15.0%), and then by IRF (range 2.5% to 5.4%). The majority of patients with at least 1 inpatient complication were discharged to post-acute care (range 58.6% for open AAA repair to 64.4% for colectomy). In multivariable analysis, specific preoperative risk factors, including advanced age, poor functional status, and inpatient complications were significantly associated with increased risk-adjusted odds of discharge to post-acute care for each operation studied. CONCLUSIONS:Among elderly patients, post-acute care use is frequent after surgery and is significantly associated with several preoperative risk factors and postoperative inpatient complications. Further work is needed to ensure that post-acute care services are used appropriately and cost-effectively.

BACKGROUND:With the growing number of survivors of breast cancer outpacing the capacity of oncology providers, there is pressure to transition patients back to primary care. Primary care providers (PCPs) working in safety-net settings may have less experience treating survivors, and little is known about their knowledge and views on survivorship care. The current study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and confidence of PCPs in the safety net at delivering care to survivors of breast cancer. METHODS:A modified version of the National Cancer Institute's Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding Care of Cancer Survivors was given to providers at 2 county hospitals and 5 associated clinics (59 providers). Focus groups were held to understand barriers to survivorship care. RESULTS:Although the majority of providers believed PCPs have the skills necessary to provide cancer-related follow-up, the vast majority were not comfortable providing these services themselves. Providers were adherent to American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for mammography (98%) and physical examination (87%); less than one-third were guideline-concordant for laboratory testing and only 6 providers (10%) met all recommendations. PCPs universally requested additional training on clinical guidelines and the provision of written survivorship care plans before transfer. Concerns voiced in qualitative sessions included unfamiliarity with the management of endocrine therapy and confusion regarding who would be responsible for certain aspects of care. CONCLUSIONS:Safety-net providers currently lack knowledge of and confidence in providing survivorship care to patients with breast cancer. Opportunities exist for additional training in evidence-based guidelines and improved coordination of care between PCPs and oncology specialists.

BACKGROUND:Although intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is recommended by the Brain Trauma Foundation, the benefits remain controversial. We sought to determine the impact of ICP monitor placement on inpatient mortality within a regional trauma system after correcting for selection bias through propensity score matching. METHODS:Data were collected on all severe TBI cases presenting to 14 trauma centers during the 2-year study period (2009-2010). Inclusion criteria were as follows: blunt injury, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 8 or lower in the emergency department, and abnormal intracranial findings on head computed tomography (CT). Two separate multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict ICP monitor placement and inpatient mortality after controlling for demographics, severity of injury, comorbidities, and TBI-specific variables (GCS score, pupil reactivity, international normalized ratio, and nine specific head CT findings). To account for selection bias, we developed a propensity score-matched model to estimate the "true" effect of ICP monitoring on in-hospital mortality. RESULT/RESULTS:A total of 844 patients met inclusion criteria; 22 died on arrival to the emergency department. Inpatient mortality was 38.8%; 46.0% of the patients underwent ICP monitor placement. Unadjusted mortality rates were significantly lower in the ICP monitoring group (30.7% vs. 45.7%, p < 0.001). ICP monitor placement was positively associated with CT findings of subdural hematoma, intraparenchymal contusion, and mass effect and negatively associated with age, alcoholism, and elevated international normalized ratio. After adjusting for selection bias via propensity score matching, ICP monitor placement was associated with an 8.3 percentage point reduction in the risk-adjusted mortality rate. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:ICP monitor placement occurred in only 46% of eligible patients but was associated with significantly decreased mortality after adjusting for baseline risk profile and the propensity to undergo monitoring. As the individual impact of ICP monitoring may vary, future efforts must determine who stands to benefit from invasive monitoring techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic/care management study, level III.

BACKGROUND:Surgical clinical registries provide clinical information with the intent of measuring and improving quality. This study aimed to describe how surgical clinical registries have been used to measure surgical quality, the reported findings, and the limitations of registry measurements. METHODS:Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane were queried for English articles with the terms: "registry AND surgery AND quality." Eligibility criteria were studies explicitly assessing quality measurement with registries as the primary data source. Studies were abstracted to identify registries, define registry structure, uses for quality measurement, and limitations of the measurements used. RESULTS:A total of 111 studies of 18 registries were identified for data abstraction. Two registries were financed privately, and 5 registries were financed by a governmental organization. Across registries, the most common uses of process measures were for monitoring providers and as platforms for quality improvement initiatives. The most common uses of outcome measures were to improve quality modeling and to identify preoperative risk factors for poor outcomes. Eight studies noted improvements in risk-adjusted mortality with registry participation; one found no change. A major limitation is bias from context and means of data collection threatening internal validity of registry quality measurement. Conversely, the other major limitation is the cost of participation, which threatens the external validity of registry quality measurement. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Clinical registries have advanced surgical quality definition, measurement, and modeling as well as having served as platforms for local initiatives for quality improvement. The implication of this finding is that subsidizing registry participation may improve data validity as well as engage providers in quality improvement.