The impact of major intraoperative adverse events on hospital readmissions

A Narrative Review on Intraoperative Adverse Events: Risks, Prevention, and Mitigation

INTRODUCTION

Adverse events from surgical interventions are common. They can occur at various stages of surgical care, and they carry a heavy burden on the different parties involved. While extensive research and efforts have been made to better understand the etiologies of postoperative complications, more research on intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) remains to be done.

METHODS

In this article, we reviewed the literature looking at iAEs to discuss their risk factors, their implications on surgical care, and the current efforts to mitigate and manage them.

RESULTS

Risk factors for iAEs are diverse and are dictated by patient-related risk factors, the nature and complexity of the procedures, the surgeon's experience, and the work environment of the operating room. The implications of iAEs vary according to their severity and include increased rates of 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality, increased length of hospital stay and readmission, increased care cost, and a second victim emotional toll on the operating surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

While transparent reporting of iAEs remains a challenge, many efforts are using new measures not only to report iAEs but also to provide better surveillance, prevention, and mitigation strategies to reduce their overall adverse impact.

Inter-Rater Agreement of the Classification of Intraoperative Adverse Events (ClassIntra) in Abdominal Surgery

OBJECTIVE AND SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adverse events in surgical patients can occur preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively. Universally accepted classification systems are not yet available for intraoperative adverse events (iAEs). ClassIntra has recently been developed and validated as a tool for grading iAEs that occur between skin incision and skin closure irrespective of the origin, that is, surgery, anesthesia, or organizational. The aim of this study is to assess the inter-rater agreement of ClassIntra and assess its predictive value for postoperative complications in elective abdominal surgery.

METHODS

This study is a secondary use of data from the LAParotomy or LAParoscopy and ADhesiolysis (LAPAD) study, with detailed data on incidence and management of intra-operative and post-operative complications. Data were collected in a cohort of elective abdominal surgeries. Two teams graded all recorded events in the LAPAD study according to ClassIntra. Cohen Kappa coefficient was calculated to determine inter-rater agreement. Uni- and multivariable linear regression was used to assess the predictive value of the ClassIntra grades for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

IAEs were rated in 333 of 755 (44%) surgeries by team 1, and in 324 of 755 (43%) surgeries by team 2. Cohen kappa coefficient for ClassIntra grades was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-0.90]. Discrepancies in grading were most frequent for intraoperative bleeding and adhesions' associated injuries. At least 1 postoperative complication was observed in 278 (37%) patients. The risk of a postoperative complications increased with every increase in severity grade of ClassIntra. Intraoperative hypotension [mean difference (MD) 23.41, 95% CI 12.93-33.90] and other organ injuries (MD 18.90, 95% CI -4.22 - 42.02) were the strongest predictors for postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

ClassIntra has an almost perfect inter-rater agreement for the classification of iAEs. An increasing grade of ClassIntra was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications. Discrepancies in grading related to common complications in abdominal procedures mostly consisted of intraoperative bleeding and adhesion-related injuries. Grading of interoperative events in abdominal surgery might further improve by consensus regarding the definitions of a number of frequent events.

Intraoperative Deaths: Who, Why, and Can We Prevent Them?

INTRODUCTION

Intraoperative deaths (IODs) are rare but catastrophic. We systematically analyzed IODs to identify clinical and patient safety patterns.

METHODS

IODs in a large academic center between 2015 and 2019 were included. Perioperative details were systematically reviewed, focusing on (1) identifying phenotypes of IOD, (2) describing emerging themes immediately preceding cardiac arrest, and (3) suggesting interventions to mitigate IOD in each phenotype.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were included. Three IOD phenotypes were identified: trauma (T), nontrauma emergency (NT), and elective (EL) surgery patients, each with 2 sub-phenotypes (e.g., ELm and ELv for elective surgery with medical arrests or vascular injury and bleeding, respectively). In phenotype T, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated before incision in 42%, resuscitative thoracotomy was performed in 33%, and transient return of spontaneous circulation was achieved in 30% of patients. In phenotype NT, ruptured aortic aneurysms accounted for half the cases, and median blood product utilization was 2,694 mL. In phenotype ELm, preoperative evaluation did not include electrocardiogram in 12%, cardiac consultation in 62%, stress test in 87%, and chest x-ray in 37% of patients. In phenotype ELv, 83% had a single peripheral intravenous line, and vascular injury was almost always followed by escalation in monitoring (e.g., central/arterial line), alert to the blood bank, and call for surgical backup.

CONCLUSIONS

We have created a framework for IOD that can help with intraoperative safety and quality analysis. Focusing on interventions that address appropriateness versus futility in care in phenotypes T and NT, and on prevention and mitigation of intraoperative vessel injury (e.g., intraoperative rescue team) or preoperative optimization in phenotype EL may help prevent IODs.

Spanish Version of the Scale "Eventos Adversos Associados às Práticas de Enfermagem" (EAAPE): Validation in Nursing Students

Healthcare carried out by different health professionals, including nurses, implies the possible appearance of adverse events that affect the safety of the patient and may cause damage to the patient. In clinical practice, it is necessary to have measurement instruments that allow for the evaluation of the presence of these types of events in order to prevent them. This study aims to validate the "Eventos adversos associados às práticas de enfermagem" (EAAPE) scale in Spanish and evaluate its reliability. The validation was carried out through a cross-sectional study with a sample of 337 nursing students from the University of Valencia recruited during the 2018-19 academic year. An exploratory factor analysis was carried out using principal components and varimax rotation. The factor analysis extracted two factors that explained 32.10% of the total variance. Factor 1 explains 22.19% and refers to the "adverse results" of clinical practice (29 items), and factor 2 explains 9.62% and refers to "preventive practices" (24 items). Both factors presented high reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.902 and 0.905, respectively). The Spanish version of the EAAPE is valid and reliable for measuring the perception of adverse events associated with nursing practice and the presence of prevention measures.

Attending-Provider Handoffs and Pediatric Emergency Department Revisits

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine if intradepartment attending-provider transitions of care (handoffs) during a pediatric emergency department (ED) encounter were associated with return ED visits resulting in hospitalization.

METHODS

We analyzed ED encounters for patients younger than 21 years discharged from a single pediatric ED from January 2013 to February 2017. We classified an encounter as having a handoff when the initial attending and discharging attending differed. Our primary outcome was a revisit within 72 hours resulting in hospitalization. Our secondary outcomes were any revisit within 72 hours and revisits resulting in hospitalization with potential deficiencies in care. We compared outcome rates for ED encounters with and without provider handoffs, both with and without adjustment for demographic, clinical, and visit characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 177,350 eligible ED encounters, 1961 (1.1%) had a return visit resulting in hospitalization and 6821 (3.9%) had any return visit. In unadjusted analyses, handoffs were associated with an increased likelihood of a return visit resulting in hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-1.70) or any return visit (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31). However, after adjustment, provider handoffs were not associated with return ED visits resulting in hospitalization (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81-1.13) or any return ED visits (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Provider handoffs in a pediatric ED did not increase the risk of return ED visits or return ED visits with deficiencies in care after adjustment for demographic, clinical, and visit factors.

Unplanned readmission after emergency laparotomy: A post hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Hospital readmission is an important quality-of-care indicator. We sought to examine the rates and predictors of unplanned readmission for the high-risk non-trauma emergency laparotomy patient.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Between April 2018 and June 2019, a total of 19 centers enrolled all adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomies and systematically collected preoperative, operative, and 30-day postoperative variables. For the purpose of this study, we defined unplanned readmission as a readmission occurring within 30 days from discharge and one that was immediately preceded by an emergency department visit. Patients were excluded if they died during the index admission, were discharged to hospice, or were transferred to other hospitals. Predictors of unplanned readmission were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, laboratory variables, and preoperative acuity of disease variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1,347 patients were included, of which 234 (17.4%) had an unplanned readmission. The median patient age was 60 y, 49.4% were male, and 71.4% were white. The most common diagnoses were hollow viscus perforation (28.1%) and small bowel obstruction (24.5%). Predictors of unplanned readmission included patient factors (eg, disseminated cancer [odds ratio: 2.22, confidence interval: 1.35-3.64, P = .002], weight loss >10% in the past 6 months [odds ratio: 1.65, confidence interval: 1.07-2.54, P = .023], dyspnea at baseline [odds ratio: 1.62, confidence interval: 1.06-2.48, P = .026], wound complications [odds ratio: 2.23, confidence interval: 1.55-3.19, P < .001], and discharge to nursing homes [odds ratio: 1.68, confidence interval: 1.02-2.80, P = .044]).

CONCLUSION

Unplanned readmission after emergency laparotomies are common, especially for patients with wound complications or requiring nursing homes. These system factors are potential quality improvement targets to reduce readmissions.

Measuring adverse events following hip arthroplasty surgery using administrative data without relying on ICD-codes

Introduction

Measure and monitor adverse events (AEs) following hip arthroplasty is challenging. The aim of this study was to create a model for measuring AEs after hip arthroplasty using administrative data, such as length of stay and readmissions, with equal or better precision than an ICD-code based model.

Materials and methods

This study included 1 998 patients operated with an acute or elective hip arthroplasty in a national multi-centre study. We collected AEs within 90 days following surgery with retrospective record review. Additional data came from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, the Swedish National Patient Register and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. We made a 2:1 split of the data into a training and a holdout set. We used the training set to train different machine learning models to predict if a patient had sustained an AE or not. After training and cross-validation we tested the best performing model on the holdout-set. We compared the results with an established ICD-code based measure for AEs.

Results

The best performing model was a logistic regression model with four natural age splines. The variables included in the model were as follows: length of stay at the orthopaedic department, discharge to acute care, age, number of readmissions and ED visits. The sensitivity and specificity for the new model was 23 and 90% for AE within 30 days, compared with 5 and 94% for the ICD-code based model. For AEs within 90 days the sensitivity and specificity were 31% and 89% compared with 16% and 92% for the ICD-code based model.

Conclusion

We conclude that a prediction model for AEs following hip arthroplasty surgery, relying on administrative data without ICD-codes is more accurate than a model based on ICD-codes.

Impact of Surgical Checklist on Mortality, Reoperation, and Readmission Rates in Brazil, a Developing Country, and Canada, a Developed Country

PURPOSE

To compare the mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates before and after the implementation of a surgical checklist in Brazil and Canada.

DESIGN

An epidemiological, retrospective study was conducted.

METHODS

Preimplementation and postimplementation data were collected via patient chart reviews to determine mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates.

FINDINGS

In Brazil, a decrease in readmission rate from 2.9% to 1.7% (P = .518) was observed after the implementation of the checklist. In Canada, reoperation rate decreased from 5.6% to 4.8% (P = .649) and mortality from 1.7% to 0.9% (P = .407) after implementation. In the Brazilian institution, patients with incomplete checklists had increased rates of readmission, from 1.4% to 2.4% (P = .671), and reoperation, from 6.8% to 10.4% (P = .232).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of surgical checklist did not translate into improvements in the outcomes studied after its implementation in any of the scenarios evaluated. This result is possibly justified by the socioeconomic structure of each of these settings.

Unexpected Intraoperative Findings, Situations, and Complications in Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is considered a safe therapy to treat obesity. Postoperative complications are well known; however, there is a lack of data describing intraoperative complications and/or unexpected findings, and if there is further impact on outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective study with patients operated between 2013 and 2016 at a single institution. All operative information was collected prospectively and aimed to analyze the incidence and causes of unexpected intraoperative findings, complications, change in surgical plan, extra surgeries, and procedure interruption in patients submitted to bariatric surgery. Secondarily, a morbidity analysis was performed, correlating intraoperative complications with postoperative complications and length of stay.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and five patients were included. Female sex comprised 82% of cases, and a median age of 38 years old was observed; almost 90% were gastric bypass. In 29.3% of cases, there were intraoperative findings, mainly adhesions, abdominal wall hernias, positive methylene blue test, hiatal hernias, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Associated surgeries were performed in 8.6% cases, and intraoperative adverse events reported in 7.1%, where organ injury and anastomosis problems were the most frequent. A change in the operative plan was done in 0.9% and surgery interruption in 1.2% of the cases. Early complications were observed in 6.6%. There was no correlation between intraoperative complications and length of stay or early complications.

CONCLUSION

Unexpected intraoperative findings/complications are common in bariatric surgery, but without increasing morbidity or length of stay. Surgery suspension, change in the planned technique, or adding extra (non-bariatric) procedures may occur.

Impact of Intra-Operative Adverse Events on the Risk of Surgical Site Infection in Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Intra-operative adverse events (iAEs) recently were shown to correlate independently with an increased risk of post-operative death, morbidity, re-admissions, and length of hospital stay. We sought to understand further the impact of iAEs on surgical site infections (SSIs) in abdominal surgical procedures and delineate which patient populations are most affected. We hypothesized that all patients with iAEs have an increased risk for SSI, especially those with pre-existing risk factors for SSI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

To identify iAEs, a well-described three-step methodology was used: (1) the 2007-2012 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was merged with the administrative database of our tertiary academic center, (2) the merged database was screened for iAEs in abdominal surgical procedures using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification-based Patient Safety Indicator "Accidental Puncture/Laceration," and (3) each flagged record was systematically reviewed to confirm iAE occurrence. Uni-variable and backward stepwise multi-variable analyses (adjusting for demographics, co-morbidities, type and complexity of operation) were performed to study the independent correlation between iAEs and SSIs (superficial, deep incisional, and organ-space). The correlation between iAEs and SSIs was investigated especially in patients deemed a priori at high risk for SSIs, specifically those older than age 60 and those with diabetes mellitus, obesity, cigarette smoking, steroid use, or American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥III.

RESULTS

A total of 9,288 operations were included, and iAEs were detected in 183 (2.0%). Most iAEs consisted of bowel (44%) or vessel (29%) injuries and were addressed intra-operatively (92%). SSI occurred in 686 (7.4%) cases and included 331 (3.5%) superficial, 32 (0.34%) deep incisional, and 333 (3.6%) organ/space infections. iAEs were correlated independently with SSI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.52, p = 0.013), and more severe iAEs were associated with a higher risk of infection. Analysis by SSI type revealed a significant association with organ/space SSI (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.07-3.05; p = 0.027), but not incisional infections. Most interestingly, the occurrence of an iAE was correlated with increased SSI rate in the low-risk but not the high-risk patient populations. Specifically, iAEs increased SSI in patients younger than 60 (OR = 2.69, 95% CI 1.55-4.67, p < 0.001), non-diabetic patients (OR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.04-2.58, p = 0.034), non-obese patients (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.81-4.66, p < 0.001), non-smokers (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.08-2.6, p = 0.022), with no steroid use (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.15-2.6, p < 0.008), and with ASA class <III (OR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.31-3.87, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The iAEs are associated independently with increased SSIs, particularly in patients with less pre-existing risk factors for SSI. Preventing iAEs or mitigating their impact, once they occur, may help decrease the rate of SSIs.

Do Not Blame the Resident: the Impact of Surgeon and Surgical Trainee Experience on the Occurrence of Intraoperative Adverse Events (iAEs) in Abdominal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) are defined as inadvertent injuries that occur during an operation and are associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and health care costs. We sought to study the impact of attending surgeon experience as well as resident training level on the occurrence of iAEs.

DESIGN

The institutional American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and administrative databases for abdominal surgeries were linked and screened for iAEs using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification-based Patient Safety Indicator "accidental puncture/laceration." Each flagged record was systematically reviewed to confirm iAE occurrence and determine the number of years of independent practice of the attending surgeon and the postgraduate year (PGY) of the assisting resident at the time of the operation. The attending surgeon experience was divided into quartiles (<6 years, 6-13 years, 13-20 years, >20 years). The resident experience level was defined as Junior (PGY-1 to PGY-3) or Senior (PGY-4 or PGY-5). Univariate/bivariate then multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and operation type and/or complexity (using RVUs as a proxy) were performed to assess the independent impact of resident and attending surgeon experience on the occurrence of iAEs.

SETTING

A large tertiary care teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients included in the 2007-2012 ACS-NSQIP that had an abdominal surgery performed by both an attending surgeon and a resident.

RESULTS

A total of 7685 operations were included and iAEs were detected in 159 of them (2.1%). Junior residents participated in 1680 cases (21.9%), while senior residents were involved in 6005 (78.1%). The iAE rates for attending surgeons with <6, 6-13, 13-20, and >20 years of experience were 2.7%, 1.7%, 2.4%, and 1.4%, respectively. In multivariable analyses, the risk of occurrence of an iAE was significantly decreased for surgeons with >20 years of experience compared to those with <6 years of experience (odds ratio=0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.86, p = 0.011). On bivariate analyses, iAEs occurred in 1.2% of junior resident cases, while senior residents had an iAE rate of 2.3%. However, after risk adjustment on multivariable analyses, the resident experience level did not significantly impact the rate of iAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgeon's level of experience, but not the resident's, is associated with the occurrence of iAEs in abdominal surgery. Efforts to improve patient safety in surgery should explore the value of pairing junior surgeons with the more experienced ones thru formalized coaching programs, rather than focus on curbing resident operative autonomy.

Outcomes associated with hyperglycemia after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the association between postoperative hyperglycemia and outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

METHODS

We used diagnosis and procedure codes (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) to identify patients who underwent open or endovascular repair of a nonruptured AAA from September 2008 to March 2014 from the Cerner Health Facts database (Cerner Corporation, North Kansas City, Mo). We evaluated the association between postoperative hyperglycemia (glucose concentration >180 mg/dL) and infections, in-hospital mortality, readmission, patients' characteristics, length of hospital stay, and medications. Multivariable logistic models examined the association of postoperative hyperglycemia with in-hospital infection and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 2478 patients, 2071 (83.5%) had good postoperative glucose control (80-180 mg/dL), and 407 (16.5%) had suboptimal control (hyperglycemia). Patients who had postoperative hyperglycemia experienced longer hospital stays (9.5 vs 4.7 days; P < .0001), higher infection rates (18% vs 8%; P < .0001), higher in-hospital mortality (8.4 vs 1.2%; P <.0001), and more acute complications (ie, acute renal failure, fluid and electrolyte disorders, respiratory complications). After adjusting for patients' characteristics and medications, multivariable logistic regression models demonstrated that patients receiving postoperative insulin had nearly 1.6 times the odds of having an infectious complication (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-2.2; P = .007) than those who did not. Hyperglycemic patients had 3.5 times the odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.78-6.80 [P = .0003]; 2.3% vs 1.2%; P < .001). When stratified by procedure type, patients with hyperglycemia who underwent endovascular repair had nearly 2 times the odds of an infectious complication (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.98-3.51; P = .05) and 7.5 times the odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 7.54; 95% CI, 1.95-29.1; P = .003). Patients who underwent an open AAA repair and who had hyperglycemia had three times the odds of dying in the hospital (OR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.29-7.21; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing elective AAA repair, approximately one in six had postoperative hyperglycemia. After AAA repair in patients with and without diabetes, postoperative hyperglycemia was associated with adverse events, including in-hospital mortality and infections. Compared with those who had open surgery, patients undergoing endovascular repair who had postoperative hyperglycemia had greater risk of infection and death. After controlling for insulin administration and postoperative hyperglycemia, a diabetes diagnosis was associated with lower odds of both infection and in-hospital mortality. Our study suggests that hyperglycemia may be used as a clinical marker as it was found to be significantly associated with inferior outcomes after elective AAA repair. This retrospective study, however, cannot imply causation; further study using prospective methods is needed to elucidate the relationship between postoperative hyperglycemia and patient outcomes.

Risk factors for 30-day readmission after adrenalectomy

BACKGROUND

Readmissions represent a substantial burden to the health care system. Risk factors for 30-day readmission after adrenalectomy were examined.

METHODS

Patients who underwent adrenalectomy were selected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2011 to 2015.

RESULTS

Among 4,221 patients who underwent adrenalectomy, 216 (5.1%) were readmitted. On multivariate analysis, pre-operative predictive factors associated with readmission were American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (odds ratio [OR] 1.4, confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.8), disseminated cancer (OR 1.6, CI 1.1-2.5), and adrenal injury (OR 10.9, CI 1.8-68.9). Elective procedures had fewer readmissions (OR 0.50, CI 0.33-0.76). and procedures with greater relative value units had greater readmission rates (OR 1.01, CI 1.004-1.02). An open adrenalectomy (21% of patients) had a higher rate of readmission than a laparoscopic approach (8.0% vs 4.3%, OR 1.5, CI 1.1-2.0). Postoperative risk factors affecting readmission included reoperations (OR 3.2, CI 1.3-8.0), wound complications (OR 6.6, CI 3.8-11.7), systemic infection (OR 6.5, CI 3.9-10.7), renal complications (OR 7.1, CI 2.6-19.2), venous thrombotic events (OR 11.3, CI 5.6-22.6), and discharge to home (OR 0.40, CI 0.22-0.73).

CONCLUSION

Encouraging the appropriate use of laparoscopic adrenalectomy, preventing venous thrombotic events and surgical infections, and improving early post-operative follow-up in high-risk patients may decrease readmissions.

Are surgeons reluctant to accurately report intraoperative adverse events? A prospective study of 1,989 patients

BACKGROUND

The true incidence of intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) remains unknown.

METHODS

All patients undergoing abdominal surgery at an academic institution between January and July 2016 were included in a prospective fashion. At the end of surgery, using a secure REDCap database, the surgeon was given the Institute of Medicine definition of intraoperative adverse events and asked whether an intraoperative adverse event had occurred. Blinded reviewers systematically examined all operative reports for intraoperative adverse events and their severity. The response rate and the intraoperative adverse event rate reported by surgeons were calculated. The latter was compared with the rate of intraoperative adverse events detected by operative report review. The severity of intraoperative adverse events was assessed based on a previously validated intraoperative adverse event classification system.

RESULTS

A total of 1,989 operations were included. The surgeons' response rate was 71.9%, reporting intraoperative adverse events in 107 operations (7.5%). Of those intraoperative adverse events, 26 (24.3%) were not described in the operative report. Operative report review revealed intraoperative adverse events in 417 operations (21.0%). Most injuries were of lower severity (85.8% were either class I or II). The surgeons' response rate was similar in operations with and without intraoperative adverse events (69.8% versus 72.5%, P=.28), but they underreported low severity intraoperative adverse events-only 13.2% of class I compared with 35.3%, 36.8%, and 55.6% of injury classes II, III, and IV respectively (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons are willing to report intraoperative adverse events, but systematically and significantly underreport them, especially if they are of lower severity. This is potentially related to the absence of a clear intraoperative adverse event definition or their personal interpretation of their clinical significance.

Operating at night does not increase the risk of intraoperative adverse events

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate the association between nighttime (NT) operating and the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (iAEs).

STUDY DESIGN

Our 2007-2012 institutional ACS-NSQIP and administrative databases were screened for iAEs using the ICD-9-CM-based Patient Safety Indicator "accidental puncture or laceration". Procedures were defined as AM (06.00-14.00 h), PM (14.00-22.00 h), or NT (22.00-06.00 h). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the association between PM and NT operating and the occurrence of iAEs.

RESULTS

9136 surgical procedures were included: 7445 AM, 1303 PM, 388 NT. iAEs occurred in 183 procedures. NT patients were younger and less comorbid, but sicker, and with less complex surgeries. There was no correlation between PM or NT operations and iAEs (multivariable analysis [reference: AM operations]: OR = 0.66 [95% CI = 0.40-1.12], P = 0.123; OR = 1.22 [95% CI = 0.51-2.93], P = 0.659, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Operating at night does increase the risk of iAEs.

The Surgeon as the Second Victim? Results of the Boston Intraoperative Adverse Events Surgeons' Attitude (BISA) Study

BACKGROUND

An intraoperative adverse event (iAE) is often directly attributable to the surgeon's technical error and/or suboptimal intraoperative judgment. We aimed to examine the psychological impact of iAEs on surgeons as well as the surgeons' attitude about iAE reporting.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey of all surgeons at 3 major teaching hospitals of the same university. The 29-item questionnaire was developed using a systematic closed and open approach focused on assessing the surgeons' personal account of iAE incidence, emotional response to iAEs, available support systems, and perspective about the barriers to iAE reporting.

RESULTS

The response rate was 44.8% (n = 126). Mean age of respondents was 49 years, 77% were male, and 83% performed >150 procedures/year. During the last year, 32% recalled 1 iAE, 39% recalled 2 to 5 iAEs, and 9% recalled >6 iAEs. The emotional toll of iAEs was significant, with 84% of respondents reporting a combination of anxiety (66%), guilt (60%), sadness (52%), shame/embarrassment (42%), and anger (29%). Colleagues constituted the most helpful support system (42%) rather than friends or family; a few surgeons needed psychological therapy/counseling. As for reporting, 26% preferred not to see their individual iAE rates, and 38% wanted it reported in comparison with their aggregate colleagues' rate. The most common barriers to reporting iAEs were fear of litigation (50%), lack of a standardized reporting system (49%), and absence of a clear iAE definition (48%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative AEs occur often, have a significant negative impact on surgeons' well-being, and barriers to transparency are fear of litigation and absence of a well-defined reporting system. Efforts should be made to support surgeons and standardize reporting when iAEs occur.