ObjectivesPostoperative mortality is a widely used quality indicator, but it may be unreliable when procedure numbers and/or mortality rates are low, due to insufficient statistical power. The ...objective was to investigate the statistical validity of postoperative 30-day mortality as a quality metric for neurosurgical practice across healthcare providers.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingHospital Episode Statistics data from all neurosurgical units in England.ParticipantsPatients who underwent neurosurgical procedures between April 2013 and March 2018. Procedures were grouped using the National Neurosurgical Audit Programme classification.Outcomes measuredNational 30-day postoperative mortality rates were calculated for elective and non-elective neurosurgical procedural groups. The study estimated the proportion of neurosurgeons and NHS trusts in England that performed sufficient procedures in 3-year and 5-year periods to detect unusual performance (defined as double the national rate of mortality). The actual difference in mortality rates that could be reliably detected based on procedure volumes of neurosurgeons and units over a 5-year period was modelled.ResultsThe 30-day mortality rates for all elective and non-elective procedures were 0.4% and 6.1%, respectively. Only one neurosurgeon in England achieved the minimum sample size (n=2402) of elective cases in 5 years needed to detect if their mortality rate was double the national average. All neurosurgical units achieved the minimum sample sizes for both elective (n=2402) and non-elective (n=149) procedures. In several neurosurgical subspecialties, approximately 80% of units (or more) achieved the minimum sample sizes needed to detect if their mortality rate was double the national rate, including elective neuro-oncology (baseline mortality rate=2.3%), non-elective neuro-oncology (rate=5.7%), neurovascular (rate=6.7%) and trauma (rate=11%).ConclusionPostoperative mortality lacks statistical power as a measure of individual neurosurgeon performance. Neurosurgical units in England performed sufficient procedure numbers overall and in several subspecialty areas to support the use of mortality as a quality indicator.
Background
Surgical mortality indicators should be risk-adjusted when evaluating the performance of organisations. This study evaluated the performance of risk-adjustment models that used English ...hospital administrative data for 30-day mortality after neurosurgery.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study used Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2018. Organisational-level 30-day mortality was calculated for selected subspecialties (neuro-oncology, neurovascular and trauma neurosurgery) and the overall cohort. Risk adjustment models were developed using multivariable logistic regression and incorporated various patient variables: age, sex, admission method, social deprivation, comorbidity and frailty indices. Performance was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration.
Results
The cohort included 49,044 patients. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 4.9%, with unadjusted organisational rates ranging from 3.2 to 9.3%. The variables in the best performing models varied for the subspecialties; for trauma neurosurgery, a model that included deprivation and frailty had the best calibration, while for neuro-oncology a model with these variables plus comorbidity performed best. For neurovascular surgery, a simple model of age, sex and admission method performed best. Levels of discrimination varied for the subspecialties (range: 0.583 for trauma and 0.740 for neurovascular). The models were generally well calibrated. Application of the models to the organisation figures produced an average (median) absolute change in mortality of 0.33% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.15–0.72) for the overall cohort model. Median changes for the subspecialty models were 0.29% (neuro-oncology, IQR 0.15–0.42), 0.40% (neurovascular, IQR 0.24–0.78) and 0.49% (trauma neurosurgery, IQR 0.23–1.68).
Conclusions
Reasonable risk-adjustment models for 30-day mortality after neurosurgery procedures were possible using variables from HES, although the models for trauma neurosurgery performed less well. Including a measure of frailty often improved model performance.
Patterns of surgical care, outcomes, and quality of care can be assessed using hospital administrative databases but this requires accurate and complete data. The aim of this study was to explore ...whether the quality of hospital administrative data was sufficient to assess pituitary surgery practice in England.
The study analysed Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from April 2013 to March 2018 on all adult patients undergoing pituitary surgery in England. A series of data quality indicators examined the attribution of cases to consultants, the coding of sellar and parasellar lesions, associated endocrine and visual disorders, and surgical procedures. Differences in data quality over time and between neurosurgical units were examined.
A total of 5613 records describing pituitary procedures were identified. Overall, 97.3% had a diagnostic code for the tumour or lesion treated, with 29.7% (n = 1669) and 17.8% (n = 1000) describing endocrine and visual disorders, respectively. There was a significant reduction from the first to the fifth year in records that only contained a pituitary tumour code (63.7%-47.0%, p < .001). The use of procedure codes that attracted the highest tariff increased over time (66.4%-82.4%, p < .001). Patterns of coding varied widely between the 24 neurosurgical units.
The quality of HES data on pituitary surgery has improved over time but there is wide variation in the quality of data between neurosurgical units. Research studies and quality improvement programmes using these data need to check it is of sufficient quality to not invalidate their results.
Neurosurgical practice has seen major changes over several decades. There are no recent evaluations of national neurosurgical practice. The aim of this observational study was to describe ...neurosurgical practice in England and to use outcomes to assess and benchmark the quality of care in neurosurgery.
This national retrospective cohort study analysed Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data from April 2013 to March 2018 for all adult admissions with a specialty code for neurosurgery. The epidemiology of patients and RCS Charlson comorbidities were derived and procedure incidence rates per 100,000 person-years calculated. Post-operative outcomes for elective and non-elective patients included: median length of stay, the proportion of patients requiring additional inpatient neurosurgical procedures, the proportion of patients discharged to their usual address, and in-hospital mortality rates.
During the 5-year study period, there were 371,418 admissions to neurosurgery. The proportion of admissions involving a neurosurgical procedure was 77.3% (n = 287,077). Of these, 45% were for cranial surgery and 37% for spinal. Overall, 68.3% were elective procedures. The incidence rates of most procedures were low (<20 per 100,000 person-years). Following elective neurosurgical procedures, in-hospital mortality rates for cranial and spinal surgery were 0.5% (95% CI, 0.5–0.6) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0.04–0.1), respectively. After non-elective neurosurgery, mortality rates were 7.4% (95% CI, 7.2–7.6) and 1.3% (95% CI, 1.2–1.5) for cranial and spinal surgery, respectively. Approximately 1 in 4 patients had additional procedures following non-elective cranial surgery (24%; 95% CI, 23.6–24.3). Outcomes were highly variable across different subspecialty areas.
The incidence rates of neurosurgical procedures are low within England, and neurosurgical units have a high volume of non-surgical admissions. In-hospital mortality rates after elective neurosurgery are low but there may be opportunities for quality improvement programmes to improve outcomes for non-elective surgery as well as ensuring equitable access to treatment.
•This study used Hospital Episode Statistics to describe neurosurgical practice in England.•Neurosurgical procedure incidence rates are low within England.•In-hospital elective mortality rates are low.•Outcomes following non-elective neurosurgery are worse than elective neurosurgery.•The findings provide baseline outcomes for benchmarking of quality of care.
Abstract
Aims
Morbidity and mortality following resection of malignant primary brain tumours is high. The benefits of reoperation for recurrent tumours are uncertain and it is not known how ...frequently patients in England undergo further tumour resections. The aim of this study was to describe 30-day and one-year readmission rates, the clinical reasons for readmission and the rate of resections for recurrent tumours.
Method
Patient data was extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics (the hospital administrative data for NHS hospitals in England) for all supratentorial, malignant, primary brain tumour resections performed from April 2013 to March 2017. All subsequent non-elective readmissions to any NHS hospital and all readmissions for further tumour resection within 30 days and one year were analysed for the primary clinical diagnosis and primary procedure performed.
Results
A total of 6,982 patients were identified and the 30-day and one-year readmission rates were 18.6% (n=1,298) and 57.4% (n=4,007), respectively. The rates of reoperation for tumour resection were 0.5% (n=33) and 6.2% (n=432), respectively. The commonest reasons for 30-day readmission were post-operative complications (17.9% of admissions), general medical complications (17.3%) and surgical site infection (9.6%). The most frequently performed neurosurgical procedures were for treatment of surgical site infection (37.6% of procedures). The commonest reasons for readmission within one year were general medical complications (17.4%), seizures (14%), systemic infections (11.4%) and post-operative complications (11%). Almost half of all neurosurgical procedures performed within one year were reoperation for tumour resection (45.6%), while treatment of surgical site infection (17.9%) and CSF shunt insertions and revisions (9.1%) were also common.
Conclusion
This study provides a descriptive analysis of the rates of readmission, diagnosis on readmission, and the need for further neurosurgical procedures. The rate of non-elective readmissions within one year is high and these data may be useful for service planning and for counselling patients about their treatment. Additionally, these data contribute to the development of quality indicators, for benchmarking and comparing quality of care provision between neurosurgical units. Further research, with linkage to histology data and performance status, would support an analysis of the role of resection of recurrent, malignant, primary brain tumours.
Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition, typically treated with surgical drainage of the haematoma. However, surgery is associated with mortality and morbidity, ...including up to 20% recurrence of the CSDH. Steroids, such as dexamethasone, have been identified as a potential therapy for reducing recurrence risk in surgically treated CSDHs. They have also been used as a conservative treatment option, thereby avoiding surgery altogether. The hypothesis of the Dex-CSDH trial is that a two-week course of dexamethasone in symptomatic patients with CSDH will lead to better functional outcome at six months. This is anticipated to occur through reduced number of hospital admissions and surgical interventions.
Dex-CSDH is a UK multi-centre, double-blind randomised controlled trial of dexamethasone versus placebo for symptomatic adult patients diagnosed with CSDH. A sample size of 750 patients has been determined, including an initial internal pilot phase of 100 patients to confirm recruitment feasibility. Patients must be recruited within 72 h of admission to a neurosurgical unit and exclusions include patients already on steroids or with steroid contraindications, patients who have a cerebrospinal fluid shunt and those with a history of psychosis. The decision regarding surgical intervention will be made by the clinical team and patients can be included in the trial regardless of whether operative treatment is planned or has been performed. The primary outcome measure is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at six months. Secondary outcomes include the number of CSDH-related surgical interventions during follow-up, length of hospital stay, mRS at three months, EQ-5D at three and six months, adverse events, mortality and a health-economic analysis.
This multi-centre trial will provide high-quality evidence as to the effectiveness of dexamethasone in the treatment of CSDH. This has implications for patient morbidity and mortality as well as a potential economic impact on the overall health service burden from this condition.
ISRCTN, ISRCTN80782810 . Registered on 7 November 2014. EudraCT, 2014-004948-35 . Registered on 20 March 2015. Dex-CSDH trial protocol version 3, 27 Apr 2017. This protocol was developed in accordance with the SPIRIT checklist. Available as a separate document on request.
ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of craniotomy, compared with decompressive craniectomy (DC) in UK patients undergoing evacuation of acute subdural haematoma (ASDH).DesignEconomic ...evaluation undertaken using health resource use and outcome data from the 12-month multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, Randomised Evaluation of Surgery with Craniectomy for Patients Undergoing Evacuation-ASDH trial.SettingUK secondary care.Participants248 UK patients undergoing surgery for traumatic ASDH were randomised to craniotomy (N=126) or DC (N=122).InterventionsSurgical evacuation via craniotomy (bone flap replaced) or DC (bone flap left out with a view to replace later: cranioplasty surgery).Main outcome measuresIn the base-case analysis, costs were estimated from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Outcomes were assessed via the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (cost-utility analysis) and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (cost-effectiveness analysis). Multiple imputation and regression analyses were conducted to estimate the mean incremental cost and effect of craniotomy compared with DC. The most cost-effective option was selected, irrespective of the level of statistical significance as is argued by economists.ResultsIn the cost-utility analysis, the mean incremental cost of craniotomy compared with DC was estimated to be −£5520 (95% CI −£18 060 to £7020) with a mean QALY gain of 0.093 (95% CI 0.029 to 0.156). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mean incremental cost was estimated to be −£4536 (95% CI −£17 374 to £8301) with an OR of 1.682 (95% CI 0.995 to 2.842) for a favourable outcome on the GOSE.ConclusionsIn a UK population with traumatic ASDH, craniotomy was estimated to be cost-effective compared with DC: craniotomy was estimated to have a lower mean cost, higher mean QALY gain and higher probability of a more favourable outcome on the GOSE (though not all estimated differences between the two approaches were statistically significant).EthicsEthical approval for the trial was obtained from the North West—Haydock Research Ethics Committee in the UK on 17 July 2014 (14/NW/1076).Trial registration number ISRCTN87370545.
The Dex-CSDH trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dexamethasone for patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma. The trial commenced with an internal pilot, ...whose primary objective was to assess the feasibility of multi-centre recruitment. Primary outcome data collection and safety were also assessed, whilst maintaining blinding. We aimed to recruit 100 patients from United Kingdom Neurosurgical Units within 12 months. Trial participants were randomised to a 2-week course of dexamethasone or placebo in addition to receiving standard care (which could include surgery). The primary outcome measure of the trial is the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. This pilot recruited ahead of target; 100 patients were recruited within nine months of commencement. 47% of screened patients consented to recruitment. The primary outcome measure was collected in 98% of patients. No safety concerns were raised by the independent data monitoring and ethics committee and only five patients were withdrawn from drug treatment. Pilot trial data can inform on the design and resource provision for substantive trials. This internal pilot was successful in determining recruitment feasibility. Excellent follow-up rates were achieved and exploratory outcome measures were added to increase the scientific value of the trial.
PDF
