Opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery with high-risk patients: a multi-method qualitative study

Development and validation of the Ex-Care BR model: a multicentre initiative for identifying Brazilian surgical patients at risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality

BACKGROUND

Surgical risk stratification is crucial for enhancing perioperative assistance and allocating resources efficiently. However, existing models may not capture the complexity of surgical care in Brazil. Using data from various healthcare settings nationwide, we developed a new risk model for 30-day in-hospital mortality (the Ex-Care BR model).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 10 hospitals from different geographic regions in Brazil. Data were analysed using multilevel logistic regression models. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Brier score, and calibration plots. Derivation and validation cohorts were randomly assigned.

RESULTS

A total of 107,372 patients were included, and 30-day in-hospital mortality was 2.1% (n=2261). The final risk model comprised four predictors related to the patient and surgery (age, ASA physical status classification, surgical urgency, and surgical size), and the random effect related to hospitals. The model showed excellent discrimination (AUROC=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.94), calibration, and overall performance (Brier score=0.017) in the derivation cohort (n=75,094). Similar results were observed in the validation cohort (n=32,278) (AUROC=0.93, 95% CI, 0.92-0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

The Ex-Care BR is the first model to consider regional and organisational peculiarities of the Brazilian surgical scene, in addition to patient and surgical factors. It is particularly useful for identifying high-risk surgical patients in situations demanding efficient allocation of limited resources. However, a thorough exploration of mortality variations among hospitals is essential for a comprehensive understanding of risk.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05796024.

Clinical context and communication in shared decision-making about major surgery: Findings from a qualitative study with colorectal, orthopaedic and cardiac patients

Increasing numbers of older people undergo major surgery in the United Kingdom (UK), with many at high risk of complications due to age, co-morbidities or frailty. This article reports on a study of such patients and their clinicians engaged in shared decision-making. Shared decision-making is a collaborative approach that seeks to value and centre patients' preferences, potentially addressing asymmetries of knowledge and power between clinicians and patients by countering medical authority with greater patient empowerment. We studied shared decision-making practices in the context of major surgery by recruiting 16 patients contemplating either colorectal, cardiac or joint replacement surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Over 18 months 2019-2020, we observed and video-recorded decision-making consultations, studied the organisational and clinical context for consultations, and interviewed patients and clinicians about their experiences of making decisions. Linguistic ethnography, the study of communication and interaction in context, guided us to analyse the interplay between interactions (during consultations between clinicians, patients and family members) and clinical and organisational features of the contexts for those interactions. We found that the framing of consultations as being about life-saving or life-enhancing procedures was important in producing three different genres of consultations focused variously on: resolving problems, deliberation of options and evaluation of benefits of surgery. We conclude that medical authority persists, but can be used to create more deliberative opportunities for decision-making through amending the context for consultations in addition to adopting appropriate communication practices during surgical consultations.

Perioperative medicine: challenges and solutions for global health

The emerging field of perioperative medicine has the potential to make significant contributions to global health. Perioperative medicine aims to help reduce unmet surgical need, decrease variation in quality and systematically improve patient outcomes. These aims are also applicable to key challenges in global health, such as limited access to surgical care, variable quality and workforce shortages. This article describes the areas in which perioperative medicine can contribute to global health using case studies of successful care pathways, risk prediction tools, strategies for effective grassroots research and novel workforce approaches aimed at effectively using limited resources.

Beyond high-risk: analysis of the outcomes of extreme-risk patients in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit

Patients who require emergency laparotomy are defined as high risk if their 30-day predicted risk of mortality is ≥ 5%. Despite a large difference in the characteristics of patients with a mortality risk score of between 5% and 50%, these outcomes are aggregated by the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA). Our aim was to describe the outcomes of the cohort of patients at extreme risk of death, which we defined as having a NELA-predicted 30-day mortality of ≥ 50%. All patients enrolled in the NELA database between December 2012 and 2020 were included. We compared patient characteristics; length of hospital stay; rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre; and 90-day survival in extreme-risk groups (predicted ≥ 50%) and high-risk patients (predicted 5-49%). Of 161,337 patients, 5193 (3.2%) had a predicted mortality of ≥ 50%. When patients were further subdivided, 2437 (47%) had predicted mortality of 50-59% (group 50-59); 1484 (29%) predicted mortality of 60-69% (group 60-69); 840 (16%) predicted mortality of 70-79% (group 70-79); and 423 (8%) predicted mortality of ≥ 80% (group 80+). Extreme-risk patients were significantly more likely to have been admitted electively than high-risk patients (p < 0.001). Length of stay increased from a median (IQR [range]) of 26 (16-43 [0-271]) days in group 50-59 to 35 (21-56 [0-368]) days in group 80+, compared with 17 (10-30 [0-1136]) days for high-risk patients. Rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre were higher in extreme-risk groups compared with high-risk patients (11% vs. 8%). The 90-day survival was 43% in group 50-59, 34% in group 60-69, 27% in group 70-79 and 17% in group 80+. These data underscore the need for a differentiated approach when discussing risk with patients at extreme risk of mortality following an emergency laparotomy. Clinicians should focus on patient priorities on quantity and quality of life during informed consent discussions before surgery. Future work should extend beyond the immediate postoperative period to encompass the longer-term outcomes (survival and function) of patients who have emergency laparotomies.