[Adverse events in general surgery. A prospective analysis of 13,950 consecutive patients]

Continuous monitoring of adverse effects improves surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

There has been significant debate about the advantages and disadvantages of using administrative databases or clinical registry in healthcare improvement programs. The aim of this study was to review the implementation and outcomes of an accountability policy through a registry maintained by professionals of the surgical department.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients admitted to the department between 2003 and 2022 were prospectively included. All adverse events (AEs) occurring during the admission, convalescent care in facilities, or at home for a minimum period of 30 days after discharge were recorded.

RESULTS

Out of 60,125 records, 24,846 AEs were documented in 16,802 cases (27.9%). There was a progressive increase in the number of AEs recorded per admission (1.17 in 2003 vs. 1.93 in 2022) with a 26% decrease in entries with AEs (from 35.0% in 2003 to 25.8% in 2022), a 57.5% decrease in reoperations (from 8.0% to 3.4%, respectively), and an 80% decrease in mortality (from 1.8% to 1.0%, respectively). It is noteworthy that a significant reduction in severe AEs was observed between 2011 and 2022 (56% vs. 15.6%).

CONCLUSION

A prospective registry of AEs created and maintained by health professionals, along with transparent presentation and discussion of the results, leads to sustained improvement in outcomes in a surgical department of a university hospital.

SEVE project (Surgical Expertise Validity Evaluation) risk adjusted quality by standard data

The SEVE project (Surgical Expertise Validity Evaluation) is a collaborative effort of the AEC (Spanish Association of Surgeons) and the Section of Surgery of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) that aims to develop a model and an on line application that can be used to evaluate surgical complications. The aim is to identify the optimal results that can be obtained in each intervention, in order to present them as a reference for our usual practice (benchmarking).

[Adverse events associated with medical care, or the dark side of health care in foreign countries: a systematic review]

A systematic review is devoted to epidemiology of adverse events in short-stay hospitals in foreign countries. It is found that dualism is an important feature of medical care, since treatment results can be not only useful, but also harmful (adverse events) associated with medical care per se. Adverse events are diagnosed in 10.68% of patients. Moreover, complications occur at previous stages of treatment in 20.91% of cases. Incidence of adverse events is 2 times higher in surgical departments and intensive care units compared to therapeutic departments. Among all adverse events, 42.83% are associated with open surgery, 16.17% with drug therapy, and 14.10% with manipulations or minimally invasive interventions. Preventable adverse events caused by human factor account for 48.24%. In other cases, adverse events are the result of side effects of medical technologies, exposure to physical environment and unsafe patient behavior. Infection associated with medical care (28.15%) prevails among other adverse events. In 51.45% of cases, adverse events are characterized by mild harm and do not prolong hospital-stay. Moderate harm requiring additional in-hospital treatment develops in 31.80% of cases. In 11.89% of cases, adverse events are life-threatening complications and/or cause disability. Moderate-to-severe harm increases hospital-stay by 8.7 days. Incidence of adverse events followed by unfavorable outcomes is 5.25%. Overall mortality and mortality from adverse events are 6.67% and 0.55%, respectively. Deaths associated with adverse events account for one in five deaths in a hospital and one in ten deaths in population of developed countries.

SEVE project (Surgical Expertise Validity Evaluation) risk adjusted quality by standard data

The SEVE project (Surgical Expertise Validity Evaluation) is a collaborative effort of the AEC (Spanish Association of Surgeons) and the Section of Surgery of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) that aims to develop a model and an on line application that can be used to evaluate surgical complications. The aim is to identify the optimal results that can be obtained in each intervention, in order to present them as a reference for our usual practice (benchmarking).

[Detection of adverse events in thyroid and parathyroid surgery using trigger tool and Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS)]

OBJECTIVES

To compare the ability of the trigger tool) and the Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS) in detecting adverse events (AE) in hospitalized surgical patients with thyroid and parathyroid disease.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional observational study, retrospective and cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2014 to April 2015 analysing retrospectively data on of patients submitted to thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy in order to detect AE through the identification of triggers (an event often associated to an AE) and the MBDS. triggers and AE were located by systematic review of clinical documentation. The MBDS was got from the data base. Once an AE was detected, it was characterized.

RESULTS

203 AE were identified in 251 patients, being the 90.04% detected by trigger tool and 10.34% by MBDS. 126 patients had at least one AE (50.2%). Without the cases in which uncontrolled pain was the only AE, the percentage of patients that suffering AE was 38.65%. 187 AE were considered preventable and 16 AE were considered unpreventable. The trigger tool and the MBDS demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.27 and 13.49%, a specificity of 4.8 and 100%, a positive predictive value of 49,15 and 100%, and a negative predictive value of 35.29 and 53.42%, respectively. The triggers with more predictive power in AE detection were «antiemetic administration» and «calcium administration».

CONCLUSIONS

Trigger tool shows higher sensitivity for detecting AE than the MBDS. All the detected AE were considered low severity and most of them were preventable.

Transanal endoscopic micro-surgery in elderly and very elderly patients: a safe option? Observational study with prospective data collection

BACKGROUND

Although the incidence of colorectal cancer increases with the patient's age, the elderly continue to be less likely to be scheduled for surgery. Transanal endoscopic micro-surgery (TEM) is a surgical alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in early stage rectal cancer and/or in selected patients that could decrease morbidity and mortality rates in this group of patients. Our main objective is to assess the safety and feasibility of TEM in elderly (75-84 years) and very elderly (≥ 85 years) patients.

METHODS

Observational study was conducted with prospective data collection of all consecutive patients who underwent TEM between April 2004 and January 2017. Patients were assigned to groups according to age. Descriptive and comparative analyses between groups were performed.

RESULTS

We analyzed 693 patients, 429 patients < 75 years (61.9%), 220 patients between the ages of 75 and 84 (31.7%), and 44 patients ≥ 85 years old (6.3%). The tendency in our series is to increase comorbidities with age. Palliative or consensus intent was more frequently performed in elderly (10.5%, 34/220), and very elderly (45.4%, 20/44), compared with the youngest (6.3%, 27/429), (p < 0.001). Global morbidity presented an increasing trend related to age from 20.3% in < 75 years, to 25.9% in elderly and 34.1% in very elderly. Surgical complications were recorded in 18.5% (128/693) of patients with no significant differences between groups. The most common one was rectal bleeding 16.1% (111/693). Significant differences were found in non-surgical complications, recorded in 7.3% (16/220) in the elderly, and 15.9% (7/44) in the group above 84 years (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

TEM presents acceptable morbidity rates mainly due to non-surgical-related adverse effects in elderly and very elderly patients and may be a feasible and safe alternative in this population in both curative and non-curative indications.

Early discharge in Mild Acute Pancreatitis. Is it possible? Observational prospective study in a tertiary-level hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In acute pancreatitis (AP), first 24 h are crucial as this is the period in which the greatest amount of patients presents an organ failure. This suggests patients with Mild AP (MAP) could be early identified and discharged. This is an observational prospective trial with the aim to demonstrate the safety of early discharge in Mild Acute Pancreatitis (MAP).

METHODS

Observational prospective study in a third level single centre. Consecutive patients with AP from March 2012 to March 2014 were collected.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

MAP, tolerance to oral intake, control of pain, C Reactive Protein <150 mg/dL and blood ureic nitrogen < 5 mg/dL in two samples.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

pregnant, lack of family support, active comorbidities, temperature and serum bilirubin elevation. Patients with MAP, who met the inclusion criteria, were discharged within the first 48 h. Readmissions within first week and first 30 days were recorded. Adverse effects related to readmissions were also collected.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seventeen episodes were collected of whom 250 patients were diagnosed with MAP. From these, 105 were early discharged. Early discharged patients presented a 30-day readmission rate of 15.2% (16 patients out of 105) corresponding to the readmission rates in Acute Pancreatitis published to date. Any patient presented adverse effects related to readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Early discharge in accurately selected patients with MAP is feasible, safe and efficient and leads to a decrease in median stay with the ensuing savings per process and with no increase in readmissions or inmorbi-mortality.

Effect of patient safety strategies on the incidence of adverse events

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to estimate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and avoidable AE in four hospital services before and after applying strategies for patient safety.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of two cohorts (2006 and 2009).

SETTING

General Surgery, Internal Medicine, Intensive Care Unit and Oncology services.

PARTICIPANTS

A sample of 365 patients (2006) and 232 in 2009 randomly selected from the services previously cited.

INTERVENTIONS

Strategies to improve patient safety (e.g. hand-hygiene campaign).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Analyses were made of the change in the incidence and type of AE and avoidable AE, number of procedures and additional days of hospital stay, and the concordance between two recording systems.

RESULTS

The incidence of patients with AE was 20.8% in 2006 compared with 28.9% in 2009 (P < 0.05). Oncology had twofold more AE than did General Surgery [odds ratio (OR) = 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-3.86] for the same length of stay and number of extrinsic risk factors. In 2006, 84.6% were considered avoidable, compared with 57.1% of 2009 (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the average length of additional stay. In 2006, there were more additional procedures compared to 2009 (OR = 2.75, 95% CI: 1.28-6.06). A concordance of 61% was found for the detection of AE with the two recording systems.

CONCLUSIONS

An increased incidence in AEs was found after the strategies, while avoidable AE decreased, as did additional treatments and procedures. The measures implemented constitute a further step in reducing avoidance and a greater awareness of recording AEs in the discharge report.

Learning curve for d2 lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer

Background. D2 lymphadenectomy is a demanding technique which is associated with high morbidity in the West. We report our experience with D2 lymphadenectomy after a training period in Japan. Methods. Prospective, descriptive study in 133 consecutive patients undergoing radical gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma from 2005 to 2011. We analysed the number of lymph nodes removed, observed morbidity/mortality compared with the predictions of POSSUM and O-POSSUM, survival, and disease-free interval for patients with D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy. Results. The morbidity rate in patients with D1 lymphadenectomy was 59.4%. For D2 it was 47.7%. The mortality rate in patients with D1 was 6.7%. In the D2 group it was 6.8%. Median survival was 42.9 months in D1 and 55 months in D2. The disease-free interval was 49 months for D1 and 58 months for D2. Conclusion. The learning curve for D2 lymphadenectomy presents acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality, providing that the technique is learnt at a center with extensive experience.

[Validation of abdominal wound dehiscence's risk model]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to determine the usefulness of the risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al., and a modification of the same, to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Observational longitudinal retrospective study.

SAMPLE

Patients who underwent midline laparotomy incisions in the General and Digestive Surgery Department of the Sabadell's Hospital-Parc Taulí's Health and University Corporation-Barcelona, between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010. Dependent variable: Abdominal wound dehiscence.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Global risk score, preoperative risk score (postoperative variables were excluded), global and preoperative probabilities of developing abdominal wound dehiscence.

RESULTS

SAMPLE

176 patients. Patients with abdominal wound dehiscence: 15 (8.5%). The global risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 4.97; IC 95%: 4.15-5.79) was better than the global risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.41; IC 95%: 3.20-3.62). This difference is statistically significant (P<.001). The preoperative risk score of abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 3.27; IC 95%: 2.69-3.84) was better than the preoperative risk score of No abdominal wound dehiscence group (mean: 2.77; IC 95%: 2.64-2.89), also a statistically significant difference (P<.05). The global risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.79) has better accuracy than the preoperative risk score (area under the ROC curve: 0.64).

CONCLUSION

The risk model developed by van Ramshorst et al. to predict the abdominal wound dehiscence's risk in the preoperative phase has a limited usefulness. Additional refinements in the preoperative risk score are needed to improve its accuracy.