Comparison of 30-day outcomes after emergency general surgery procedures: Potential for targeted improvement

Background Patients who undergo emergency operations represent a high-risk population and have been shown to have a high risk of poor outcomes. Little is known, however, about the variability in the quality of emergency general surgical care across hospitals or within hospitals across different proc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgery 2010-08, Vol.148 (2), p.217-238
Hauptverfasser: Ingraham, Angela M., MD, Cohen, Mark E., PhD, Bilimoria, Karl Y., MD, MS, Raval, Mehul V., MD, Ko, Clifford Y., MD, MS, MSHS, Nathens, Avery B., MD, PhD, Hall, Bruce L., MD, PhD, MBA
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Patients who undergo emergency operations represent a high-risk population and have been shown to have a high risk of poor outcomes. Little is known, however, about the variability in the quality of emergency general surgical care across hospitals or within hospitals across different procedures. The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors associated with adverse events, to compare 30-day outcomes after 3 common emergency general surgery procedures within and across hospitals, and thus, to determine whether the quality of emergency surgical care is procedure-dependent or intrinsic to other aspects of the hospital environment. Methods Patients who underwent emergency appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or colorectal resection at 95 hospitals that submitted at least 20 of each procedure were identified in the 2005–2008 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. Outcomes of interest included 30-day overall morbidity and serious morbidity/mortality. Step-wise logistic regression generated patient-level predicted probabilities of an outcome. Based on the expected probabilities, observed to expected (O/E) ratios for each outcome, after each of the 3 procedures, were calculated for each hospital. Hospitals were divided into terciles based on O/E ratios. The agreement on hospital outcomes performance for overall morbidity and serious morbidity/mortality after appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and colorectal resection was assessed using weighted kappa statistics. Results Of the 30,788 appendectomies, 1,984 (6.44%) patients had any morbidity, and 1,140 (3.70%) patients had a serious morbidity or died. Of the 5,824 cholecystectomies, 503 (8.64%) patients had any morbidity, and 371 (6.37%) patients had a serious morbidity or died. Of the 8,990 colorectal resections, 4,202 (46.74%) patients had any morbidity, and 3,736 (41.56%) patients had a serious morbidity or died. For overall morbidity, O/E ratios for appendectomy ranged from 0.26 to 2.36; O/E ratios for cholecystectomy ranged from 0 to 3.04; O/E ratios for colorectal resection ranged from 0.45 to 1.51. For serious morbidity/mortality, O/E ratios for appendectomy ranged from 0.23 to 2.54; O/E ratios for cholecystectomy ranged from 0 to 4.28; O/E ratios for colorectal resection ranged from 0.59 to 1.75. Associations of risk-adjusted hospital outcomes based on tercile rank between procedures demonstrated slight but significant agreement for both overall morb
ISSN:0039-6060
1532-7361
DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2010.05.009