Variation in Patient-reported Outcomes Across Hospitals Following Surgery

First report of outcomes from the patient-reported outcome measures program in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is one of the most important outcomes to metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) patients but was not measured by the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). A patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) program pilot started in 2016 with MBSAQIP implementation in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To measure how MBS impacts patient HRQoL 1 and 2 years after primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (bypass) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (sleeve).

SETTING

The 82 centers in the United States participating in the MBSAQIP PROMs program.

METHODS

Preoperative HRQoL scores and satisfaction were compared with postoperative scores 1 and 2 years after surgery with univariate comparisons and adjusted regression models.

RESULTS

There were 13,901 PROMs responses from 11,146 patients. Patient satisfaction with their MBS decision was 97%. On average, patients had significant improvement in Obesity-related Problem (OP) scores (65.8 preoperatively, 23.0 at 1 yr, and 26.3 at 2 yr; P <.05), Obesity and Weight-Loss Quality-of-Life (OWLQOL) scores (36.7 preoperatively, 77.2 at 1 yr, and 74.6 at 2 yr; P < .05), their physical health (39.2 preoperatively versus 51.7 at 1 yr and 50.0 at 2 yr), and mental health (45.6 preoperatively versus 53.3 at 1 yr and 51.4 at 2 yr). Compared with bypass patients, sleeve patients had significantly lower odds of having low OP scores postoperatively (odds ratio [95% CI) ] .67 [.53, .83]) and lower odds of high OWLQOL (.61 [.48, .77]) at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

All patients regardless of procedure on average report significant improvement in their scores for OP, OWLQOL, and physical and mental health after MBS. At 1 and 2 years, bypass patients reported greater improvement in their obesity-related PROMs than sleeve patients.

Selection of patient-reported outcomes measures for implementation in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) assesses safety after metabolic and bariatric surgery and the impact on weight and obesity-related diseases. However, changes in quality of life are likely what matters most to patients, and these are not currently assessed. The best way to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is to use validated patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), which capture patients' perspectives of their quality of life both before and after surgery.

OBJECTIVES

Identify the outcomes most important to bariatric surgery patients and identify the most appropriate validated PROMs to implement in a national program for the MBSAQIP.

SETTING

Five hospitals from a single healthcare system in New England.

METHODS

A series of 18 focus groups and/or interviews conducted with patients, patients' family members, and bariatric health providers determined the outcomes most important to bariatric patients and which validated PROMs would accurately measure those outcomes. Immersion crystallization was used to analyze focus group data and identify appropriate PROMs.

RESULTS

Focus group participants ranked health as the most important outcome for metabolic and bariatric surgery. Self-confidence, mobility, and everyday activities were the next highest ranked HRQoL domains. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Item Global Health Survey was selected as the general health measure. The Obesity-Related Problems scale and the Obesity and Weight-Loss Quality of Life Instrument were the disease-specific measures selected for inclusion in the MBSAQIP PROMs program.

CONCLUSION

The addition of PROMs to the MBSAQIP provides a unique opportunity to monitor HRQoL at the national level, which can foster improved shared decision-making before surgery.

Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.

CONCLUSION

A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.

[How do nurses describe timeliness in the delivery of nursing interventions? A qualitative study]

How do nurses describe timeliness in the delivery of nursing interventions? A qualitative study Abstract: Background: Timeliness of nursing interventions is fundamental to professional medical care. Although nurses have developed strategies to manage time resources, nursing interventions are often carried out too early or too late. Both can have a negative impact on the quality of care and safety. However, no publications are available describing nurses' views on the appropriateness of time to perform nursing interventions. Aim: The aim was to describe what registered nurses in the hospital understand by the timeliness to deliver care. Methods: For this qualitative study, eight registered nurses were interviewed individually. Data analysis was performed using content analysis according to Mayring. Results: For the participants, timeliness in performing care interventions can be described as relational and dynamically changing over time. For them it is not limited to a defined point in time and they explain it as a time frame. From their point of view, timely action can prevent harm and suffering and ensure patients safety and well-being. Environmental factors, nursing goals and the urgency of actions influence them whether they act in a timely manner. Conclusion: Among the participating nurses, there exists a shared, often implicit, understanding of timeliness. Results of this study may help to understand the implicit understanding and the related processes and contribute to quality assurance in nursing.

Outcome Quality After Colorectal Cancer Resection in Certified Colorectal Cancer Centers—Patient-Reported and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In this observational study, patient-reported outcomes and short-term clinical outcome parameters in patients with colorectal cancer were studied 12 months after the start of treatment. Outcomes were also compared across German Certified Colorectal Cancer Centres.

METHODS

Data were collected from 4239 patients with colorectal cancer who had undergone elective tumor resection in one of 102 colorectal cancer centers and had responded to a quality-of-life questionnaire before treatment (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -CR29). 3142 (74.1%) of these patients completed a post-treatment questionnaire 12 months later. Correlation analyses were calculated and case-mix adjusted comparisons across centers were made for selected patient-reported outcomes, anastomotic insufficiency, and 30-day-mortality.

RESULTS

At 12 months, mild improvements were seen in mean quality-of-life scores (66 vs. 62 points), constipation (16 vs. 19), and abdominal pain (15 vs. 17). Worsening was seen in physical function (75 vs. 82) and pain (22 vs. 19). Better patient-reported outcomes at 12 months were associated with better scores before treatment. Better results in at least three of the five scores were associated with male sex, higher educational level, higher age, and private health insurance. Major worsening of fecal incontinence was seen among patients with rectal cancer without a stoma. The largest differences across centers were found with respect to physical function. Anastomotic insufficiency was found in 4.3% of colon cancer patients and 8.2% of rectal cancer patients. 1.9% of patients died within 30 days after their resection.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians can use these findings to identify patients at higher risk for poorer patient-reported outcomes. The differences among cancer centers that were found imply that measures for quality improvement would be desirable.

Surgeon Engagement with Patient-Reported Measures in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Practices

PURPOSE

Patient-reported measures are an important emerging metric in outcome monitoring; however, they remain ill-defined and underutilized in bariatric clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patient-reported measures employed in bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, including barriers to their implementation and to what extent clinicians are receptive to their use.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to all bariatric surgeons actively contributing to the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry (n = 176). Participants reported their use of patient-reported measures and identified the most important and useful outcomes of patient-reported data for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Responses from 64 participants reported on 120 public and private bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Most participants reported no collection of any patient-reported measure (39 of 64; 60.9%), citing insufficient staff time or resources as the primary barrier to the collection of both patient-reported experience measures (34 of 102 practices; 33.3%) and patient-reported outcome measures (30 of 84 practices; 35.7%). Participants indicated data collection by the Registry would be useful (47 of 57; 82.5%), highlighting the most valuable application to be a monitoring tool, facilitating increased understanding of patient health needs, increased reporting of symptoms, and enhanced patient-physician communication.

CONCLUSION

Despite the current lack of patient-reported measures, there is consensus that such data would be valuable in bariatric practices. Widespread collection of patient-reported measures by registries could improve the collective quality of the data, while avoiding implementation barriers faced by individual surgeons and hospitals.

A Smartphone Application Using Artificial Intelligence Is Superior To Subject Self-Reporting When Assessing Stool Form

INTRODUCTION

Stool form assessment relies on subjective patient reports using the Bristol Stool Scale (BSS). In a novel smartphone application (app), trained artificial intelligence (AI) characterizes digital images of users' stool. In this study, we evaluate this AI for accuracy in assessing stool characteristics.

METHODS

Subjects with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome image-captured every stool for 2 weeks using the app, which assessed images for 5 visual characteristics (BSS, consistency, fragmentation, edge fuzziness, and volume). In the validation phase, using 2 expert gastroenterologists as a gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and diagnostic odds ratios of subject-reported vs AI-graded BSS scores were compared. In the implementation phase, agreements between AI-graded and subject-reported daily average BSS scores were determined, and subject BSS and AI stool characteristics scores were correlated with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome symptom severity scores.

RESULTS

In the validation phase (n = 14), there was good agreement between the 2 experts and AI characterizations for BSS (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] = 0.782-0.852), stool consistency (ICC = 0.873-0.890), edge fuzziness (ICC = 0.836-0.839), fragmentation (ICC = 0.837-0.863), and volume (ICC = 0.725-0.851). AI outperformed subjects' self-reports in categorizing daily average BSS scores as constipation, normal, or diarrhea. In the implementation phase (n = 25), the agreement between AI and self-reported BSS scores was moderate (ICC = 0.61). AI stool characterization also correlated better than subject reports with diarrhea severity scores.

DISCUSSION

A novel smartphone application can determine BSS and other visual stool characteristics with high accuracy compared with the 2 expert gastroenterologists. Moreover, trained AI was superior to subject self-reporting of BSS. AI assessments could provide more objective outcome measures for stool characterization in gastroenterology.

Patient-reported outcomes as hospital performance measures: the challenge of confounding and how to handle it

It is highly appealing to use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as hospital performance measures; however, so far, the attention to key methodological issues has been limited. One of the most critical challenges when comparing PRO-based performance measures across providers is to rule out confounding. In this paper, we explain confounding and why it matters when comparing across providers. Using examples from studies, we present potential strategies for dealing with confounding when using PRO data at an aggregated level. We aim to give clinicians an overview of how confounding can be addressed in both the design stage (restriction, matching, self-controlled design and propensity score) and the analysis stage (stratification, standardization and multivariable adjustment, including multilevel analysis) of a study. We also briefly discuss strategies for confounding control when data on important confounders are missing or unavailable.

Variation across operating sites in urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy in localized and locally advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The extent of variation in urinary and sexual functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RPE) between prostate cancer (PC) operating sites remains unknown. Therefore, this analysis aims to compare casemix-adjusted functional outcomes (EPIC-26 scores incontinence, irritative/obstructive function and sexual function) between operating sites 12 months after RPE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis of a cohort of 7065 men treated with RPE at 88 operating sites (prostate cancer centers, "PCCs") between 2016 and 2019. Patients completed EPIC-26 and sociodemographic information surveys at baseline and 12 months after RPE. Survey data were linked to clinical data. EPIC-26 domain scores at 12 months after RPE were adjusted for relevant confounders (including baseline domain score, clinical and sociodemographic information) using regression analysis. Differences between sites were described using minimal important differences (MIDs) and interquartile ranges (IQR). The effects of casemix adjustment on the score results were described using Cohen's d and MIDs.

RESULTS

Adjusted domain scores at 12 months varied between sites, with IQRs of 66-78 (incontinence), 89-92 (irritative/obstructive function), and 20-29 (sexual function). Changes in domain scores after casemix adjustment for sites ≥ 1 MID were noted for the incontinence domain (six sites). Cohen's d ranged between - 0.07 (incontinence) and - 0.2 (sexual function), indicating a small to medium effect of casemix adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation between sites was greatest in the incontinence and sexual function domains for RPE patients. Future research will need to identify the factors contributing to this variation.

TRIAL REGISTRY

The study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/ ) with the following ID: DRKS00010774.

Different Approaches for Case-Mix Adjustment of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Compare Healthcare Providers-Methodological Results of a Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Patient-reported outcomes need to be reported with case-mix adjustment in order to allow fair comparison between healthcare providers. This systematic review identified different approaches to case-mix adjustment, with wide variation between the various approaches.

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used to compare the quality of outcomes between different healthcare providers (medical practices, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities). However, such comparisons can only be fair if differences in the case-mix between different types of provider are taken into account. This can be achieved with adequate statistical case-mix adjustment (CMA). To date, there is a lack of overview studies on current CMA methods for PROs. The aim of this study was to investigate which approaches are currently used to report and examine PROs for case-mix-adjusted comparison between providers. A systematic MEDLINE literature search was conducted (February 2021). The results were examined by two reviewers. Articles were included if they compared (a) different healthcare providers using (b) case-mix-adjusted (c) patient-reported outcomes (all AND conditions). From 640 hits obtained, 11 articles were included in the analysis. A wide variety of patient characteristics were used as adjustors, and baseline PRO scores and basic sociodemographic and clinical information were included in all models. Overall, the adjustment models used vary considerably. This evaluation is an initial attempt to systematically investigate different CMA approaches for PROs. As a standardized approach has not yet been established, we suggest creating a consensus-based methodological guideline for case-mix adjustment of PROs.

Hospital and Surgeon Variation in Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Statewide Evaluation

STUDY DESIGN

Statewide retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from the Spine Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, capturing ∼75% of the state's spine fusion procedures.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the variation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 1 year after elective lumbar fusion surgery across surgeons and hospitals; and to discuss the potential impact of guiding patient selection using a PRO prediction tool.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite an increasing interest in incorporating PROs as part of the move toward value-based payment and to improve quality, limited evidence exists on how PROs vary across hospitals and surgeons, a key aspect of using these metrics for quality profiling.

METHODS

We examined patient-reported functional improvement (≥15-point reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) and minimal disability (reaching ≤22 on the ODI) 1 year after surgery in 17 hospitals and 58 surgeons between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were risk-adjusted for patient characteristics with multiple logistic regressions and reliability-adjusted using hierarchical models.

RESULTS

Of the 737 patients who underwent lumbar fusion (mean [SD] age, 63 [12] years; 60% female; 84% had stenosis; 70% had spondylolisthesis), 58.7% achieved functional improvement and 42.5% reached minimal disability status at 1 year. After adjusting for patient factors, there was little variation between hospitals and surgeons (maximum interclass correlation was 3.5%), and this variation became statistically insignificant after further reliability adjustment. Avoiding operation on patients with <50% chance of functional improvement may reduce current surgical volume by 63%.

CONCLUSION

Variations in PROs across hospitals and surgeons were mainly driven by differences in patient populations undergoing lumbar fusion, suggesting that PROs may not be useful indicators of hospital or surgeon quality. Careful patient selection using validated prediction tools may decrease differences in outcomes across hospitals and providers and improve overall quality, but would significantly reduce surgical volumes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Measuring quality of life in bariatric surgery: a multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Current studies mainly focus on total weight loss and comorbidity reduction. Only a few studies compare Quality of Life (QoL) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study was conducted to examine the extent of improvement in QoL on different domains after primary bariatric surgery and compare these results to Dutch reference values.

METHODS

The study included prospectively collected data from patients who underwent primary bariatric surgery in five Dutch hospitals. The RAND-36 questionnaire was used to measure the patient's QoL; preoperatively and twelve months postoperatively. Postoperative scores were compared to Dutch reference values, standardized for age, using t-test. A difference of more than 5% was considered a minimal important difference. A multivariate linear regression analysis was used to compare SG and RYGB on the extent of improvement, adjusted for case-mix factors.

RESULTS

In total, 4864 patients completed both the pre- and postoperative questionnaire. Compared with Dutch reference values, patients postoperatively reported clinically relevant better physical functioning (RYGB + 6.8%), physical role limitations (SG + 5.6%; RYGB + 6.2%) and health change (SG + 77.1%; RYGB + 80.0%), but worse general health perception (SG - 22.8%; RYGB - 17.0%). Improvement in QoL was similar between SG and RYGB, except for physical functioning (β 2.758; p-value 0.008) and general health perception (β 2.607; p-value < 0.001) for which RYGB patients improved more.

CONCLUSIONS

SG and RYGB patients achieved a better postoperative score in physical functioning, physical role limitations and health change compared to Dutch reference values, and a worse score in general health perception.

Hospital Variations in Clinical Complications and Patient-reported Outcomes at 2 Years After Immediate Breast Reconstruction

OBJECTIVE

Our objectives were to investigate case-mix adjusted hospital variations in 2-year clinical and patient-reported outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND

Over the past few decades, variations in medical practice have been viewed as opportunities to promote best practices and high-value care.

METHODS

The Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study is an National Cancer Institute-funded longitudinal, prospective cohort study assessing clinical and patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy at 11 leading medical centers. Case-mix adjusted comparisons were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models to assess variation across the centers in any complication, major complications, satisfaction with outcome, and satisfaction with breast.

RESULTS

Among 2252 women in the analytic cohort, 1605 (71.3%) underwent implant-based and 647 (28.7%) underwent autologous breast reconstruction. There were significant differences in the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and distribution of procedure types at the different Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study centers. After case-mix adjustments, hospital variations in the rates of any and major postoperative complications were observed. Medical center odds ratios for major complication ranged from 0.58 to 2.13, compared with the average major complication rate across centers. There were also meaningful differences in satisfaction with outcome (from the lowest to highest of -2.79-2.62) and in satisfaction with breast (-2.82-2.07) compared with the average values.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year postoperative complications varied widely between hospitals following post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. These variations represent an important opportunity to improve care through dissemination of best practices and highlight the limitations of extrapolating single-institution level data and the ongoing challenges of studying hospital-based outcomes for this patient population.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgical Oncology: An Overview of Instruments and Scores

Traditional measures of quality and effectiveness in surgical oncology have focused on morbidity, mortality, and when available, recurrence rates. Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has become more widely accepted during the last decade. This article reviews instruments commonly used in the surgical treatment of cancer patients to evaluate PROs. In addition, it discusses the linkage of PROs and health-related quality of life measures with traditional surgical complications and highlights future directions related to the expanding use of PROs in the surgical care of cancer patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes: Understanding Surgical Efficacy and Quality from the Patient's Perspective

In surgery, quality assessment encourages improved care delivery, better outcomes, and helps determine surgical efficacy. Quality is important from a patient, provider, payer, and policy maker standpoint. However, given the growth of outpatient procedures, expansion of surgical indications to enhance function, and the decline of perioperative morbidity and mortality, many traditional quality metrics, such as mortality, readmissions, and complications, may not fully capture quality. As such, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used to complement the established clinical outcomes and describe surgical efficacy and quality from the patient's point of view. Generic and disease-specific PRO measures capture health-related quality of life, functional status, and pain. These measures permit a more holistic understanding of how surgery affects different aspects of a patient's health, augment other clinical outcomes, and are commonly used to determine efficacy in clinical trials. Moreover, our national reimbursement structure is currently evolving to include PROs for certain surgical conditions in measures of quality and with direct linkage to payments. Even so, there continues to be challenges in the implementation of PRO measures in everyday surgical practice, with questions of optimal administration and how to integrate these measures into provider work flow. Despite these challenges, PROs provide vital information regarding surgical efficacy and quality and are critical in the delivery of patient-centered care.

Quality of Life 10 Years after Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has recently become the most commonly applied bariatric procedure worldwide. Substantial regaining of weight or severe reflux might compromise quality of life (QOL) after SG in the long-term follow-up. Long-term data on patients' QOL is limited, even though the persistent improvement in QOL is one of the aims of bariatric surgery. The objective of this study was to present patients' QOL 10 years after SG.

METHODS

Of 65 SG patients with a follow-up of ≥10 years after SG who were asked to fill out the Bariatric Quality of Life Index (BQL) and Short Form 36 (SF36) questionnaires, 48 (74%) completed them. This multicenter study was performed in a university hospital setting in Austria.

RESULTS

The BQL score revealed nonsignificant differences between the patients with > 50% or < 50% excess weight loss (EWL). It did show significant differences between patients with and without any symptoms of reflux. Patients with < 50% EWL scored significantly lower in 3/8 categories of SF36. Patients suffering from reflux had significantly lower scores in all categories.

CONCLUSIONS

EWL and symptomatic reflux impair patients' long-term QOL after SG.