Background Expert panels of colorectal surgeons consistently rank anastomotic leak as among the most important quality metrics for colectomies. Nonetheless, most administrative and clinical databases ...do not collect data on anastomotic leaks and rely on reported organ space surgical site infections (OSI) as a proxy for identifying anastomotic leaks. This study questions the validity of using OSI as a surrogate for anastomotic leak. Methods The Upstate New York Surgical Quality Initiative (UNYSQI) is a collaboration of 12 hospitals that prospectively collects colectomy-specific metrics, including anastomotic leak, in addition to standard National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data, including OSIs. Cases with an organ space infection and/or anastomotic leak were selected from the 2010–2011 UNYSQI database. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared for cases with organ space infections and anastomotic leaks. Results Overall, 3% of colectomies had a reported organ space infection and 4% had an anastomotic leak. Among cases having anastomotic leaks, only 25% were also coded as having an organ space infection, leaving 75% of anastomotic leaks not captured by the NSQIP database (κ = 0.272; P ≤ .001). Conclusion Organ space infection is a poor surrogate for anastomotic leak, resulting in grossly underestimated leak rates and seemingly represents different postoperative courses. Procedure-specific quality measures for colorectal surgery should include data collection on anastomotic leaks to provide accurate data for use in improving patient care.
Background Since July 2014 General Surgery residency programs have been required to use the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones twice annually to assess the progress of ...their trainees. We felt this change was a great opportunity to use this new evaluation tool for resident self-assessment and to furthermore engage the faculty in the educational efforts of the program. Methods We piloted the milestones with postgraduate year (PGY) II and IV residents during the 2013/2014 academic year to get faculty and residents acquainted with the instrument. In July 2014, we implemented the same protocol for all residents. Residents meet with their advisers quarterly. Two of these meetings are used for milestones assessment. The residents perform an independent self-evaluation and the adviser grades them independently. They discuss the evaluations focusing mainly on areas of greatest disagreement. The faculty member then presents the resident to the clinical competency committee (CCC) and the committee decides on the final scores and submits them to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website. We stored all records anonymously in a MySQL database. We used Anova with Tukey post hoc analysis to evaluate differences between groups. We used intraclass correlation coefficients and Krippendorff’s α to assess interrater reliability. Results We analyzed evaluations for 44 residents. We created scale scores across all Likert items for each evaluation. We compared score differences by PGY level and raters (self, adviser, and CCC). We found highly significant increases of scores between most PGY levels (p < 0.05). There were no significant score differences per PGY level between the raters. The interrater reliability for the total score and 6 competency domains was very high (ICC: 0.87-0.98 and α : 0.84-0.97). Even though this milestone evaluation process added additional work for residents and faculty we had very good participation (93.9% by residents and 92.9% by faculty) and feedback was generally positive. Conclusion Even though implementation of the milestones has added additional work for general surgery residency programs, it has also opened opportunities to furthermore engage the residents in reflection and self-evaluation and to create additional venues for faculty to get involved with the educational process within the residency program. Using the adviser as the initial rater seems to correlate closely with the final CCC assessment. Self-evaluation by the resident is a requirement by the RRC and the milestones seem to be a good instrument to use for this purpose. Our early assessment suggests the milestones provide a useful instrument to track trainee progression through their residency.
Background Concerns regarding care quality prompted credentialing processes for bariatric “Centers of Excellence” (COE). It is hypothesized that high-volume surgeons and hospitals have better ...outcomes. Objective This population-based study examines the effect of bariatric surgery volume on mortality in Pennsylvania. Methods Between 1999 and 2003, 14,716 patients having gastric bypass surgery in Pennsylvania hospitals were identified from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council database. Individual surgeons and hospitals were stratified as high (> 100 cases/yr), medium (50–100 cases/yr), or low volume (< 50 cases/yr). The relationship between surgeon and hospital volume on length of stay (LOS), in-hospital, and 30-day mortality were examined, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, payor, and MedisGroups Admission Severity Group (ASG) score. Results There were 26–50 low ( n = 2,158), 35–54 medium ( n = 1,835), and 43–64 high ( n = 10,723) volume hospitals in Pennsylvania. The mean volume/hospital increased between 1999 and 2003 (30–120 cases/yr) and in-hospital mortality decreased (0.8–0.2%). Thirty-day mortality (1.15%) was approximately 2 times the in-hospital mortality (0.37%). Male gender (odds ratio OR 3.6, P < .001), ASG (OR 2.5, P < .001), hospital and surgeon volume were associated with increased in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Controlling for other factors, patients treated by low- and medium-volume surgeons (OR 3.7, P = .002; OR 2.8, P = .015) and hospitals (OR 2.3, P = .01; OR 2.44, P = .017) had increased odds of 30-day mortality versus high-volume surgeons and hospitals. LOS was significantly shorter at high-volume hospitals as well. Conclusions In Pennsylvania, high volume is associated with decreased mortality and LOS. The results support the use of surgical volume in the COE credentialing process.
Anastomotic Leaks: Should We Be Pointing Fingers? Hensley, Bradley J., MD, MBA; Cooney, Robert N., MD, FACS; Hellenthal, Nicholas J., MD, FACS ...
Journal of the American College of Surgeons,
October 2016, Letnik:
223, Številka:
4
Journal Article
