Transforming Patient Value: Comparison of Hospital, Surgical, and General Surgery Patients

Disentangling the value equation: a step forward in value-based healthcare

BACKGROUND

The value equation of value-based healthcare (VBHC) as a single figure remains ambiguous, closer to a theoretical framework than a useful tool for decision making. The challenge lies in the way patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) might be combined to produce a single value of the numerator. This paper aims to estimate the weights of PCOs to provide a single figure in the numerator, which ultimately will allow a VBHC figure to be reached.

METHODS

A cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 690) with a 6-month follow-up recruited in 2019-20 across six European hospitals was used. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical-related outcomes (CROs), and clinical and socio-demographic variables were collected. The numerator was defined as a composite indicator of the PCOs (CI-PCO), and regression analysis was applied to estimate their weights and consequently arrive at a single figure.

RESULTS

Pain showed as the highest weight followed by physical functioning, emotional functioning, and ability to work, and then by a symptom, either arm or breast. PCOs weights were robust to sensitivity analysis. The CI-PCO value was found to be more informative than the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) value.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research to combine the PCOs proposed by ICHOM to provide a single figure in the numerator of the value equation. This figure shows a step forward in VBHC to reach a holistic benchmarking across healthcare centres and a value-based payment. This research might also be applied in other medical conditions as a methodological pathway.

Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing thoracic surgery: a systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Perioperative bleeding poses a significant issue during thoracic surgery. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is one of the most commonly used antifibrinolytic agents for surgical patients. The purpose of the current study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of TXA in patients undergoing thoracic surgery.

METHODS

An extensive search of PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Cochrane Library (trials), Embase, OVID, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP electronic databases was performed to identify studies published between the inception of these databases and March 2023. The primary outcomes included perioperative blood loss and blood transfusions. Secondary outcomes of interest included the length of stay (LOS) in hospital and the incidence of thromboembolic events. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to determine treatment effects for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Five qualified studies including 307 thoracic surgical patients were included in the current study. Among them, 65 patients were randomly allocated to the group receiving TXA administration (the TXA group); the other 142 patients were assigned to the group not receiving TXA administration (the control group). TXA significantly reduced the quantity of hemorrhage in the postoperative period (postoperative 12h: WMD = -81.90 ml; 95% CI: -139.55 to -24.26; P = 0.005; postoperative 24h: WMD = -97.44 ml; 95% CI: -121.44 to -73.44; P< 0.00001); The intraoperative blood transfusion volume (WMD = -0.54 units; 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.03; P = 0.04); LOS in hospital (WMD = -0.6 days; 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.16; P = 0.008); And there was no postoperative thromboembolic event reported in the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that TXA significantly decreased blood loss within 12 and 24 hours postoperatively. A qualitative review did not identify elevated risks of safety outcomes such as thromboembolic events. It also suggested that TXA administration was associated with shorter LOS in hospital as compared to control. To validate this further, additional well-planned and adequately powered randomized studies are necessary.

The impact of age and comorbidity on localized pancreatic cancer outcomes: A US retrospective cohort analysis with implications for surgical centralization

Introduction

Age and comorbidity are independently associated with worse outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the effect of combined age and comorbidity on PDAC outcomes has rarely been studied. This study assessed the impact of age and comorbidity (CACI) and surgical center volume on PDAC 90-day and overall survival (OS).

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016 to evaluate resected stage I/II PDAC patients. The predictor variable, CACI, combined the Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score with additional points for each decade lived ≥50 years. The outcomes were 90-day mortality and OS.

Results

The cohort included 29,571 patients. Ninety-day mortality ranged from 2 % for CACI 0 to 13 % for CACI 6+ patients. There was a negligible difference (1 %) in 90-day mortality between high- and low-volume hospitals for CACI 0-2 patients; however, there was greater difference for CACI 3-5 (5 % vs. 9 %) and CACI 6+ (8 % vs. 15 %). The overall survival for CACI 0-2, 3-5, and 6+ cohorts was 24.1, 19.8, and 16.2 months, respectively. Adjusted overall survival showed a 2.7 and 3.1 month survival benefit for care at high-volume vs. low-volume hospitals for CACI 0-2 and 3-5, respectively. However, there was no OS volume benefit for CACI 6+ patients.

Conclusions

Combined age and comorbidity are associated with short- and long-term survival for resected PDAC patients. A protective effect of higher-volume care was more impactful for 90-day mortality for patients with a CACI above 3. A centralization policy based on volume may have greater benefit for older, sicker patients.

Key message

Combined comorbidity and age are strongly associated with 90-day mortality and overall survival for resected pancreatic cancer patients. When assessing the impact of age and comorbidity on resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma outcomes, 90-day mortality was 7 % higher (8 % vs. 15 %) for older, sicker patients treated at high-volume vs. low-volume centers but only 1 % (3 % vs. 4 %) for younger, healthier patients.

Multidisciplinary care in surgery: Are team-based interventions cost-effective?

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary care has been shown to improve outcomes for patients, and interprofessional collaboration has been demonstrated to be beneficial for providers. In the field of surgery, although a large number of multidisciplinary care teams have been described, no study to date has examined whether or not these team-based interventions are generally cost-effective. This is the first systematic review to examine cost savings attributable to multidisciplinary care across all surgical fields.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of articles published on cost outcomes associated with multidisciplinary surgical teams was performed. Selected articles reported on cost outcomes directly attributable to a collaborative intervention. Cost savings were totaled on a per-patient basis. Each article was also reviewed to determine whether the authors ultimately recommended the team-based intervention described.

RESULTS

A total of 1421 articles were identified in the initial query, of which 43 met inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine studies (91%) reported multidisciplinary care to be cost effective, with an average cost savings among all studies of $5815 per patient. No significant differences in the amount of savings achieved were found between different intervention subtypes. All studies ultimately recommended (40) or gave mixed reviews (3) of multidisciplinary care, regardless of whether cost savings were achieved.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary surgical care is beneficial not only in terms of patient and provider outcomes, but also in reference to its cost-effectiveness. Well-designed multidisciplinary teams tend to optimize perioperative care for all involved parties. Efforts to improve surgical care should employ multidisciplinary teams to promote both quality and cost-effective care.

Is quality important to our patients? The relationship between surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction

Background

With greater transparency in health system reporting and increased reliance on patient-centred outcomes, patient satisfaction has become a priority in delivering quality care. We sought to explore the relationship between patient satisfaction and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing general surgical procedures.

Methods

Satisfaction surveys were distributed to patients following discharge from the general surgery service at an academic hospital between June 2012 and March 2015. Short-term clinical outcomes were obtained from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients rated their level of satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale, and ordered logistic regression model was used to determine predictors of high patient satisfaction.

Results

757 patient satisfaction surveys were completed. The mean age of patients surveyed was 52.2 years; 60.0% of patients were female. The majority of patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure (85.9%) and were admitted as inpatients following surgery (72%). 91.5% of patients rated satisfaction of 4–5, and 95.0% said they would recommend the service. The odds of overall satisfaction were lower in patients who had complications (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87) and 30-day readmission (OR: 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Having elective surgery was associated with higher odds of satisfaction (OR: 1.62, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.47).

Conclusions

We found a significant association between patient satisfaction and both 30-day readmission and the occurrence of postoperative surgical complications. Given this association, further study is warranted to evaluate patient satisfaction as a healthcare quality indicator.

Assuring survival of safety-net surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Survival of surgical inpatients is a key quality metric. Patient, surgeon, and system factors all contribute to inpatient mortality, and sophisticated risk adjustment is required to assess outcomes. When the mortality of general surgery patients was determined to be high at a safety-net hospital, a comprehensive approach was undertaken to improve patient survival.

METHODS

General surgical service line mortality was measured in the database of the University HealthSystem Consortium from January 2013 through June 2015. Ten best practices were implemented sequentially to decrease observed and/or increase expected mortality. University HealthSystem Consortium mortality rank, observed, expected, and observed/expected index as well as early deaths were compared with control charts for 30 months.

RESULTS

University HealthSystem Consortium general surgery mortality improved from the bottom decile to the top quartile, while Case Mix Index increased from 2.48 to 2.82 (P < .05). Observed mortality decreased from 3.39 to 2.35%. Expected mortality increased from 1.40 to 2.73% (P < .05). The observed/expected mortality index decreased from 2.43 to 0.86 (P < .05). Early deaths decreased from 0.52 to 0% (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Risk-adjusted mortality and early deaths decreased significantly over 30 months in general surgery patients. Systematic implementation of quality best practices was associated with improved survival of general surgery patients at a safety-net medical center.