The financial impact of intraoperative adverse events in abdominal surgery

Appraisal of surgical outcomes and oncological efficiency of intraoperative adverse events in robotic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical quality control is a crucial determinant of evaluating the tumor efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ClassIntra grade for quality control and oncological outcomes of robotic radical surgery for gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

Data of patients undergoing robotic radical surgery for GC at a high-volume center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into two groups, the intraoperative adverse event (iAE) group and the non-iAE group, based on the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events. The iAEs were further classified into five sublevels (ranging from I to V according to severity) based on the ClassIntra grade. Surgical performance was assessed using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and the General Error Reporting Tool.

RESULTS

This study included 366 patients (iAE group: n = 72 [19.7%] and non-iAE group: n = 294 [80.3%]). The proportion of ClassIntra grade II patients was the highest in the iAE group (54.2%). In total and distal gastrectomies, iAEs occurred most frequently in the suprapancreatic area (50.0% and 54.8%, respectively). In total gastrectomy, grade IV iAEs were most common during lymph node dissection in the splenic hilum area (once for bleeding [grade IV] and once for injury [grade IV]). The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival of the non-iAE group were significantly better than those of the iAE group (Log rank P < 0.001). Uni- and multi-variate analyses showed that iAEs were key prognostic indicators, independent of tumor stage and adjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

iAEs in patients who underwent robotic radical gastrectomy significantly correlated with the occurrence of postoperative complications and a poor long-term prognosis. Therefore, utilization and inclusion of ClassIntra grading as a crucial surgical quality control and prognostic indicator in the routine surgical quality evaluation system are recommended.

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.

Development and evaluation of a data-driven integrated management app for perioperative adverse events: protocol for a mixed-design study

INTRODUCTION

A patient record review study conducted in 2006 in a random sample of 21 Dutch hospitals found that 51%-77% of adverse events are related to perioperative care, while Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data in USA in 2013 estimated that the medical error is the third-leading cause of mortality. To capitalise on the potential of apps to enhance perioperative medical quality, there is a need for interventions developed in consultation with real-world users designed to support integrated management for perioperative adverse events (PAEs). This study aims: (1) to access the knowledge, attitude and practices for PAEs among physicians, nurses and administrators, and to identify the needs of healthcare providers for a mobile-based PAEs tool; (2) to develop a data-driven app for integrated PAE management that meets those needs and (3) to test the usability, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the developed app.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will adopt an embedded mixed-methods research technique; qualitative data will be used to assess user needs and app adoption, while quantitative data will provide crucial insights to establish the demand for the app, and measure the app effects. Phase 1 will enrol surgery-related healthcare providers from the West China Hospital and identify their latent demand for mobile-based PAEs management using a self-designed questionnaire underpinned by the knowledge, attitude and practice model, as well as expert interviews. In phase 2, we will develop the app for integrated PAE management and test its effectiveness and sustainability. In phase 3, the effects on the total number and severity of reported PAEs will be evaluated using Poisson regression with interrupted time-series analysis over a 2-year period, while users' engagement, adherence, process evaluation and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated using quarterly surveys and interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The West China Hospital of Sichuan University's Institutional Review Board authorised this study after approving the study protocol, permission forms and questionnaires (number: 2022-1364). Participants will be provided with study information, and informed written consent will be obtained. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Clavien-Dindo, comprehensive complication index and classification of intraoperative adverse events: a uniform and holistic approach in adverse event registration for (deep) endometriosis surgery

STUDY QUESTION

What is the additional value of the comprehensive complication index (CCI) and ClassIntra system (classification for intraoperative adverse events (ioAEs)) in adverse event (AE) reporting in (deep) endometriosis (DE) surgery compared to only using the Clavien-Dindo (CD) system?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The CCI and ClassIntra are useful additional tools alongside the CD system for a complete and uniform overview of the total AE burden in patients with extensive surgery (such as DE), and with this uniform data registration, it is possible to provide greater insight into the quality of care.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Uniform comparison of AEs reported in the literature is hampered by scattered registration. In endometriosis surgery, the usage of the CD complication system and the CCI is internationally recommended; however, the CCI is not routinely adapted in endometriosis care and research. Furthermore, a recommendation for ioAEs registration in endometriosis surgery is lacking, although this is vital information in surgical quality assessments.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A prospective mono-center study was conducted with 870 surgical DE cases from a non-university DE expertise center between February 2019 and December 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Endometriosis cases were collected with the EQUSUM system, a publicly available web-based application for registration of surgical procedures for endometriosis. Postoperative adverse events (poAEs) were classified with the CD complication system and CCI. Differences in reporting and classifying AEs between the CCI and the CD were assessed. ioAEs were assessed with the ClassIntra. The primary outcome measure was to assess the additional value toward the CD classification with the introduction of the CCI and ClassIntra. In addition, we report a benchmark for the CCI in DE surgery.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 870 DE procedures were registered, of which 145 procedures with one or more poAEs, resulting in a poAE rate of 16.7% (145/870), of which in 36 cases (4.1%), the poAE was classified as severe (≥Grade 3b). The median CCI (interquartile range) of patients with poAEs was 20.9 (20.9-31.7) and 33.7 (33.7-39.7) in the group of patients with severe poAEs. In 20 patients (13.8%), the CCI was higher than the CD because of multiple poAEs. There were 11 ioAEs reported (11/870, 1.3%) in all procedures, mostly minor and directly repaired serosa injuries.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study was conducted at a single center; thus, trends in AE rates and type of AEs could differ from other centers. Furthermore, no conclusion could be drawn on ioAEs in relation to the postoperative course because the power of this database is not robust enough for that purpose.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

From our data, we would advise to use the Clavien-Dindo classification system together with the CCI and ClassIntra for a complete overview of AE registration. The CCI appeared to provide a more complete overview of the total burden of poAEs compared to only reporting the most severe poAEs (as with CD). If the use of the CD, CCI, and ClassIntra is widely adapted, uniform data comparison will be possible at (inter)national level, providing better insight into the quality of care. Our data could be used as a first benchmark for other DE centers to optimize information provision in the shared decision-making process.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No funding was received for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Classification of Adverse Events in Adult Surgery

Successful surgery combines quality (achievement of a positive outcome) with safety (avoidance of a negative outcome). Outcome assessment serves the purpose of quality improvement in health care by establishing performance indicators and allowing the identification of performance gaps. Novel surgical quality metric tools (benchmark cutoffs and textbook outcomes) provide procedure-specific ideal surgical outcomes in a subgroup of well-defined low-risk patients, with the aim of setting realistic and best achievable goals for surgeons and centers, as well as supporting unbiased comparison of surgical quality between centers and periods of time. Validated classification systems have been deployed to grade adverse events during the surgical journey: (1) the ClassIntra classification for the intraoperative period; (2) the Clavien-Dindo classification for the gravity of single adverse events; and the (3) Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) for the sum of adverse events over a defined postoperative period. The failure to rescue rate refers to the death of a patient following one or more potentially treatable postoperative adverse event(s) and is a reliable proxy of the institutional safety culture and infrastructure. Complication assessment is undergoing digital transformation to decrease resource-intensity and provide surgeons with real-time pre- or intraoperative decision support. Standardized reporting of complications informs patients on their chances to realize favorable postoperative outcomes and assists surgical centers in the prioritization of quality improvement initiatives, multidisciplinary teamwork, surgical education, and ultimately, in the enhancement of clinical standards.

Automated Capture of Intraoperative Adverse Events Using Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) impact the outcomes of surgery, and yet are not routinely collected, graded, and reported. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to power real-time, automatic detection of these events and disrupt the landscape of surgical safety through the prediction and mitigation of iAEs. We sought to understand the current implementation of AI in this space. A literature review was performed to PRISMA-DTA standards. Included articles were from all surgical specialties and reported the automatic identification of iAEs in real-time. Details on surgical specialty, adverse events, technology used for detecting iAEs, AI algorithm/validation, and reference standards/conventional parameters were extracted. A meta-analysis of algorithms with available data was conducted using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the article risk of bias and clinical applicability. A total of 2982 studies were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore, with 13 articles included for data extraction. The AI algorithms detected bleeding (n = 7), vessel injury (n = 1), perfusion deficiencies (n = 1), thermal damage (n = 1), and EMG abnormalities (n = 1), among other iAEs. Nine of the thirteen articles described at least one validation method for the detection system; five explained using cross-validation and seven divided the dataset into training and validation cohorts. Meta-analysis showed the algorithms were both sensitive and specific across included iAEs (detection OR 14.74, CI 4.7-46.2). There was heterogeneity in reported outcome statistics and article bias risk. There is a need for standardization of iAE definitions, detection, and reporting to enhance surgical care for all patients. The heterogeneous applications of AI in the literature highlights the pluripotent nature of this technology. Applications of these algorithms across a breadth of urologic procedures should be investigated to assess the generalizability of these data.

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.

Classification of intraoperative adverse events in visceral surgery

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) are frequent in visceral surgery, but severity and related postoperative outcome are poorly investigated. A novel classification of intraoperative adverse events, ClassIntra, includes surgical and anesthesiologic intraoperative adverse events using 5 severity grades and showed a high criterion and construct validity across all surgical disciplines. ClassIntra was studied for reproducibility in a prespecified group of patients undergoing visceral surgery.

METHODS

iAEs were recorded in all patients enrolled in the ClassIntra validation study (NCT03009929). Postoperative complications were assessed daily according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results of the visceral group were compared with those of the non-visceral group and the full cohort. The risk-adjusted association between most severe intra and postoperative complications was investigated in a multivariable proportional odds model. Second, risk-adjusted association between ClassIntra grade and Comprehensive Complication Index, and postoperative length of stay was investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 1,270 out of 2,520 patients (50%) underwent visceral surgery. Compared with the nonvisceral group and full cohort, more intraoperative (337/1270 [27%] vs 273/1250 [22%] vs 610/2520 [24%] patients) and postoperative complications (457/1270 [36%] vs 381/1250 [30%] vs 838/2520 [33%] patients) occurred. The risk for a more severe postoperative complication increased with each ClassIntra grade (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] I vs 0 1.10 [0.73 to 1.66], II vs 0 1.69 [1.10 to 2.60], III vs 0 2.31 [1.21 to 4.41], IV vs 0 2.35 [0.69 to 8.06]). Accordingly, CCI and postoperative length of stay increased with each ClassIntra grade in the visceral group, comparable with the nonvisceral and full cohort.

CONCLUSION

Consistent results for the association of intraoperative adverse events and patient outcomes render ClassIntra a valuable instrument in visceral surgery.

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.

Case Volume-Dependent Changes in Operative Morbidity following Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: A 15-Year Single-Center Analysis

BACKGROUND

Operative morbidity is a common yet modifiable feature of complex surgical procedures. With increasing case volume, improvement in morbidity has been reported through designated procedural processes and greater repetition. Defined as a volume-outcome association, improvement in breast reconstruction morbidity with increasing free flap volume requires further characterization.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted among consecutive free flap patients using a two-microsurgeon model between January of 2002 and December of 2017. Patient demographics and operative characteristics were obtained from medical records. Complications including unplanned surgical intervention (take-back) and flap loss were obtained from prospectively kept databases. Individual surgeon operative volume was estimated by considering overall practice volume and correcting for the number of surgeons at any given time.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3949 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 6607 breasts underwent reconstruction with 6675 free flaps. Mean patient age was 50 ± 9.4 years and mean body mass index was 28.8 ± 5.0 kg/m2. Bilateral reconstruction was performed on 2633 patients (66.5 percent), with 4626 breasts (70.5 percent) reconstructed in the immediate setting. Overall, breast and donor-site complications were reported in 507 breasts (7.7 percent) and 607 cases (15.4 percent), respectively. Take-back was required in 375 cases (9.5 percent), with complete flap loss occurring in 57 cases (0.9 percent). Based on annual flaps per surgeon, the incidence of complications decreased with increasing volume (slope = -0.12; p = 0.056).

CONCLUSION

Through procedural efficiency and execution of defined clinical processes using a two-microsurgeon model, increases in microsurgical breast reconstruction case volume result in decreased morbidity.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Quality Versus Costs Related to Gastrointestinal Surgery: Disentangling the Value Proposition

BACKGROUND

There has been a dramatic increase in worldwide health care spending over the last several decades. Operative procedures and perioperative care in the USA represent some of the most expensive episodes per patient. In view of both the rising cost of health care in general and the rising cost of surgical care specifically, policymakers and stakeholders have sought to identify ways to increase the value-improving quality of care while controlling (or diminishing) costs. In this context, we reviewed data relative to achieving the "value proposition" in the delivery of gastrointestinal surgical care.

METHODS

The National Library of Medicine online repository (PubMed) was text searched for human studies including "cost," "quality," "outcomes," "health care," "surgery," and "value." Results from this literature framed by the Donabedian conceptual model (identifying structures, processes, and outcomes), and the resulting impact of efforts to improve quality on costs.

RESULTS

The relationship between quality and costs was nuanced. Better quality care, though associated with better outcomes, was not always reported as concomitant with low costs. Moreover, some centers reported higher costs of surgical care commensurate with higher quality. Conversely, higher costs in health care delivery were not always linked to improved outcomes. While higher quality surgical care can lead to lower costs, higher costs of care were not necessarily associated with better outcomes. Strategies to improve quality, reduce cost, or achieve both simultaneously included regionalization of complex operations to high-volume centers of excellence, overall reduction in complications, introducing evidence-based improvements in perioperative care pathways including as enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and elimination of inefficient or low-value care.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between quality and cost following gastrointestinal surgical procedure is complex. Data from the current study should serve to highlight the various means available to improve the value proposition related to surgery, as well as encourage surgeons to become more engaged in the national conversation around the Triple Aim of better health care quality, lower costs, and improved health care outcomes.

Prospective validation of classification of intraoperative adverse events (ClassIntra): international, multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively assess the construct and criterion validity of ClassIntra version 1.0, a newly developed classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events.

DESIGN

International, multicentre cohort study.

SETTING

18 secondary and tertiary centres from 12 countries in Europe, Oceania, and North America.

PARTICIPANTS

The cohort study included a representative sample of 2520 patients in hospital having any type of surgery, followed up until discharge. A follow-up to assess mortality at 30 days was performed in 2372 patients (94%). A survey was sent to a representative sample of 163 surgeons and anaesthetists from participating centres.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Intraoperative complications were assessed according to ClassIntra. Postoperative complications were assessed daily until discharge from hospital with the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint was construct validity by investigating the risk adjusted association between the most severe intraoperative and postoperative complications, measured in a multivariable hierarchical proportional odds model. For criterion validity, inter-rater reliability was evaluated in a survey of 10 fictitious case scenarios describing intraoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of 2520 patients enrolled, 610 (24%) experienced at least one intraoperative adverse event and 838 (33%) at least one postoperative complication. Multivariable analysis showed a gradual increase in risk for a more severe postoperative complication with increasing grade of ClassIntra: ClassIntra grade I versus grade 0, odds ratio 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.42); grade II versus grade 0, 1.39 (0.97 to 2.00); grade III versus grade 0, 2.62 (1.31 to 5.26); and grade IV versus grade 0, 3.81 (1.19 to 12.2). ClassIntra showed high criterion validity with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.91) in the survey (response rate 83%).

CONCLUSIONS

ClassIntra is the first prospectively validated classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events in a standardised way, linking them to postoperative complications with the well established Clavien-Dindo classification. ClassIntra can be incorporated into routine practice in perioperative surgical safety checklists, or used as a monitoring and outcome reporting tool for different surgical disciplines. Future studies should investigate whether the tool is useful to stratify patients to the appropriate postoperative care, to enhance the quality of surgical interventions, and to improve long term outcomes of surgical patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03009929.

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.

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.

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 cost of intraoperative adverse events in abdominal and pelvic surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The assessment of intra-operative adverse events (iAEs) is a vastly under researched area with the potential to provide new methods on how to improve patient outcomes and hospital costs. Our objective was to determine the relationship between iAEs and total hospital costs in abdominal and pelvic surgery.

DATA SOURCES

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Embase, MEDLINE and EBM Reviews online databases were searched to identify all studies that reported iAE rates and total hospital costs. We then analyzed the costing approach used in each article using the Drummond tool and evaluated articles quality using the GRADE method.

CONCLUSIONS

In total, 1709 unique references were identified through our literature search. After review, 23 were included. All studies that reported iAE rates and cost as the primary outcome found that iAEs significantly increased total hospital costs. We identified a relationship between iAEs and increased hospital costs. Future studies need to be performed to further evaluate the relationship between iAEs and cost as current studies are of low quality.

Introducing a Morbidity and Mortality Conference in Rwanda

OBJECTIVES

To assess the structure, format, and educational features of a morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference in Rwanda. To determine factors associated with adverse events and to define opportunities for improvement.

DESIGN

Retrospective, descriptive study of all cases presented at a surgical M&M conference over a 1-year period. Cases were reviewed for factors associated with adverse events and opportunities for improvement. Factors were characterized as delays in presentation, delays in diagnosis, delays in the operating room, errors in judgment, technical errors, advanced disease, and missing resources or malnutrition. Opportunities for improvement were categorized at the physician or hospital level.

SETTING

University Teaching Hospital of Kigali, a tertiary referral hospital in Rwanda.

PARTICIPANTS

Cases presented at the surgical M&M conference over a 1-year period.

RESULTS

Over a 1-year period, there were a total of 2231 operations with 131 in-hospital mortalities. There were 62 patients discussed at M&M conference. Of those discussed, there were 34 (55%) in-hospital deaths and 32 (52%) unplanned reoperations. Common diagnostic categories included 30 (48%) gastrointestinal, 15 (24%) trauma, and 10 (16%) neoplasm. Delays were commonly cited factors affecting outcomes. There were 22 (35%) delays in presentation, 23 (37%) delays in diagnosis or management, and 20 (32%) delays to the operating room. Errors in judgment occurred in 15 (24%) cases and technical errors occurred in 18 (29%) cases. Twenty-three (37%) patients had a critical resource missing and 17 (27%) patients had advanced disease. Malnutrition was associated with 11 (18%) adverse events. Participants identified opportunities for improvement in 48 (77%) cases.

CONCLUSION

M&M conference can be used in a low-resource setting as an educational tool to address core competencies of practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice. It can define factors associated with surgical adverse events and opportunities for improvement at the physician and hospital levels.

Developing and Evaluating an Automated All-Cause Harm Trigger System

BACKGROUND

From 2009 through 2012, the Adventist Health System Patient Safety Organization (AHS PSO) used the Global Trigger Tool method for harm identification and demonstrated harm reduction. Although the awareness of harm demonstrated opportunities for improvement across the system, leaders determined that the human and fiscal resources required to continue with a retrospective manual harm identification process were unsustainable. In addition, there was growing concern that the identification of harm after the patient's discharge did not allow for intervention during the hospital stay. Therefore, the AHS PSO decided to seek an alternative method for patient harm identification.

METHODS

The AHS PSO and another PSO jointly developed a novel automated all-cause harm trigger identification system that allowed for real-time bedside intervention, real-time trend analysis affecting patient safety, and continued learning about harm measurement. A sociotechnical approach of people, process, and technology was used at two pilot hospitals sharing the same electronic health record platform. Automated positive harm triggers and work-flow models were developed and evaluated.

RESULTS

Combined data from the two hospitals in a period of 11 consecutive months indicated (1) a total of 2,696 harms (combined hospital-acquired and outside-acquired); (2) that hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 40 mg/dL) was the most frequently identified harm; (3) 256 harms related to the Patient Safety Indicator 90 (PSI 90) Composite descriptions versus 77 harms reported to regulatory harm reduction programs; and (4) that almost one third (32%) of total harms were classified as outside-acquired.

CONCLUSION

The automated harm trigger system revealed not only more harm but a broader scope of harm and led to a deeper understanding of patient safety vulnerabilities.

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.

The impact of major intraoperative adverse events on hospital readmissions

BACKGROUND

Hospital-wide readmission rates recently became a recognized benchmarking quality metric. We sought to study the independent impact of major intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) on 30-day readmission in abdominal surgery.

METHODS

The 2007 to 2012 institutional American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and administrative databases for abdominal operations were matched then screened for iAEs using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-based Patient Safety Indicator "Accidental Puncture/Laceration". Flagged charts were reviewed to confirm the presence of iAEs. Major iAEs were defined as class 3 or above, as per our recently validated iAE Classification System. The inpatient database was queried for readmission within 30 days from discharge. Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to analyze the independent impact of major iAEs on readmission, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiology class, and procedure type/approach/complexity (using relative value units as proxy). Reasons for readmission were investigated using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification-based Clinical Classification Software.

RESULTS

Of 9,274 surgical procedures; 921 resulted in readmission (9.9%), 183 had confirmed iAEs, 73 of which were major iAEs. Procedures with major iAEs had a higher readmission rate compared with procedures with no iAEs [24.7% vs 9.8%, P < .001]. In multivariable analyses, major iAEs were independently associated with a 2-fold increase in readmission rates [OR = 2.17 (95% CI = 1.22 to 3.86); P = .008]; 67% of readmissions after major iAEs were caused by "complications of surgical procedures or medical care" as defined by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Major iAEs are independently associated with increased rates of 30-day readmission. Preventing iAEs or mitigating their effects can serve as a quality improvement target to decrease surgical readmissions.