Estimated costs before, during and after the introduction of the emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuIC) bundle

Hospital-level evaluation of the effect of a national quality improvement programme: time-series analysis of registry data

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A clinical trial in 93 National Health Service hospitals evaluated a quality improvement programme for emergency abdominal surgery, designed to improve mortality by improving the patient care pathway. Large variation was observed in implementation approaches, and the main trial result showed no mortality reduction. Our objective therefore was to evaluate whether trial participation led to care pathway implementation and to study the relationship between care pathway implementation and use of six recommended implementation strategies.

METHODS

We performed a hospital-level time-series analysis using data from the Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients trial. Care pathway implementation was defined as achievement of >80% median reliability in 10 measured care processes. Mean monthly process performance was plotted on run charts. Process improvement was defined as an observed run chart signal, using probability-based 'shift' and 'runs' rules. A new median performance level was calculated after an observed signal.

RESULTS

Of 93 participating hospitals, 80 provided sufficient data for analysis, generating 800 process measure charts from 20 305 patient admissions over 27 months. No hospital reliably implemented all 10 processes. Overall, only 279 of the 800 processes were improved (3 (2-5) per hospital) and 14/80 hospitals improved more than six processes. Mortality risk documented (57/80 (71%)), lactate measurement (42/80 (53%)) and cardiac output guided fluid therapy (32/80 (40%)) were most frequently improved. Consultant-led decision making (14/80 (18%)), consultant review before surgery (17/80 (21%)) and time to surgery (14/80 (18%)) were least frequently improved. In hospitals using ≥5 implementation strategies, 9/30 (30%) hospitals improved ≥6 care processes compared with 0/11 hospitals using ≤2 implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

Only a small number of hospitals improved more than half of the measured care processes, more often when at least five of six implementation strategies were used. In a longer term project, this understanding may have allowed us to adapt the intervention to be effective in more hospitals.

A national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery: the EPOCH stepped-wedge cluster RCT

Background

Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess whether or not the QI programme improves 90-day survival after emergency abdominal surgery; to assess effects on 180-day survival, hospital stay and hospital readmission; and to better understand these findings through an integrated process evaluation, ethnographic study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Design

This was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. Hospitals were organised into 15 geographical clusters, and commenced the QI programme in random order over 85 weeks. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effects parametric survival model, adjusting for time-related effects. Ethnographic and economics data were collected in six hospitals. The process evaluation included all hospitals.

Setting

The trial was set in acute surgical services of 93 NHS hospitals.

Participants

Patients aged ≥ 40 years who were undergoing emergency abdominal surgery were eligible.

Intervention

The intervention was a QI programme to implement an evidence-based care pathway.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were mortality within 180 days, length of hospital stay and hospital readmission within 180 days. The main economic measure was the quality-adjusted life-years.

Data sources

Data were obtained from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database; qualitative interviews and ethnographic observations; quality-of-life and NHS resource use data were collected via questionnaires.

Results

Of 15,873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 participants in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. The primary outcome occurred in 1393 participants in the usual care group (16%), compared with 1210 patients in the QI group (16%) [QI vs. usual care hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.28]. No differences were found in mortality at 180 days or hospital readmission; there was a small increase in hospital stay in the QI group (HR for discharge 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97). There were only modest improvements in care processes following QI implementation. The ethnographic study revealed good QI engagement, but limited time and resources to implement change, affecting which processes teams addressed, the rate of change and eventual success. In some sites, there were challenges around prioritising the intervention in busy environments and in obtaining senior engagement. The intervention is unlikely to be cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, but may be cost-effective over the lifetime horizon.

Limitations

Substantial delays were encountered in securing data access to national registries. Fewer patients than expected underwent surgery and the mortality rate was lower than anticipated.

Conclusions

There was no survival benefit from a QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. The modest impact of the intervention on process measures, despite good clinician engagement, may have been limited by the time and resources needed to improve patient care.

Future work

Future QI programmes must balance intervention complexity with the practical realities of NHS services to ensure that such programmes can be delivered with the resources available.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80682973 and The Lancet protocol 13PRT/7655.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Improving care at scale: process evaluation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention to reduce mortality after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH trial)

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality and safety of perioperative care is a global priority. The Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients (EPOCH) trial was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial of a quality improvement (QI) programme to improve 90-day survival for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in 93 hospitals in the UK National Health Service.

METHODS

The aim of this process evaluation is to describe how the EPOCH intervention was planned, delivered and received, at both cluster and local hospital levels. The QI programme comprised of two interventions: a care pathway and a QI intervention to aid pathway implementation, focussed on stakeholder engagement, QI teamwork, data analysis and feedback and applying the model for improvement. Face-to-face training and online resources were provided to support senior clinicians in each hospital (QI leads) to lead improvement. For this evaluation, we collated programme activity data, administered an exit questionnaire to QI leads and collected ethnographic data in six hospitals. Qualitative data were analysed with thematic or comparative analysis; quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The EPOCH trial did not demonstrate any improvement in survival or length of hospital stay. Whilst the QI programme was delivered as planned at the cluster level, self-assessed intervention fidelity at the hospital level was variable. Seventy-seven of 93 hospitals responded to the exit questionnaire (60 from a single QI lead response on behalf of the team); 33 respondents described following the QI intervention closely (35%) and there were only 11 of 37 care pathway processes that > 50% of respondents reported attempting to improve. Analysis of qualitative data suggests QI leads were often attempting to deliver the intervention in challenging contexts: the social aspects of change such as engaging colleagues were identified as important but often difficult and clinicians frequently attempted to lead change with limited time or organisational resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant organisational challenges faced by QI leads shaped their choice of pathway components to focus on and implementation approaches taken. Adaptation causing loss of intervention fidelity was therefore due to rational choices made by those implementing change within constrained contexts. Future large-scale QI programmes will need to focus on dedicating local time and resources to improvement as well as on training to develop QI capabilities.

EPOCH TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN80682973 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN80682973 Registered 27 February 2014 and Lancet protocol 13PRT/7655.

Outcomes of Emergency Laparotomy (EL) Care Protocol at Tertiary Care Center from Low-Middle-Income Country (LMIC)

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparotomy mortality ranges between 10 and 20% in best of Western healthcare systems and is currently a major focus for quality improvement programs. In contrast, emergency surgery scenario in LMIC is largely undefined, often neglected and complex (large burden of diseases but only limited capacity for adequate treatment). We evaluated the efficacy of 'EL care protocol' aimed at cost-effective optimal utilization of best available local expertise and infrastructure.

METHODS

One hundred and two consecutive adult patients (≥16 years) who underwent EL from December 2012-December 2015 at a private tertiary hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic procedures were excluded from the analysis. The EL care protocol included. (1) Admission to surgical intensive care unit for pre- and postoperative optimization. (2) Preferred radiologic investigation: abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan. (3) Surgery and critical care by senior surgical gastroenterologists and internists/anesthesiologists, respectively. Outcome measures were procedure-related complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), readmissions and costs.

RESULTS

Of the 102 patients, there were 62 males and 40 females with median age of 60 (range 16-93) years. There were no complications in 22 (21.6%) patients, while Clavien-Dindo complications grade I or II occurred in 48 (47%) patients. Grade V Clavien-Dindo complications and the 30-day mortality were similar of 19 (18.6%). The readmission rate was 8 (7.8%). The expected mortality for the study group by P-POSSUM score was 31.2 (30.6%). The ratio (O/E) of observed to expected mortality was 0.61. The all inclusive median cost of treatment was INR 379,255 ($5590).

CONCLUSIONS

LMIC centers should develop their own center-specific EL care protocols to improve outcomes of EL.

Effect of different anesthesia and analgesic methods on recovery of gastrointestinal function in elderly patients after open surgery

AIM

To explore the effect of different anesthesia and analgesia methods on gastrointestinal function recovery in elderly patients after open surgery.

METHODS

A total of 100 elderly patients undergoing open surgery from April 2016 to December 2017 were selected and divided into a control group (n = 50) and an observation group (n = 50) according to the method of anesthesia and analgesia. In the control group, systemic intravenous anesthesia and meridian analgesia were used. In the observation group, combined spinal and epidural anesthesia and epidural analgesia were used. Time to first defecation, time to recovery of gastrointestinal peristalsis, and time to food intake were recorded. Immunoradiometric method was used to determine plasma motilin levels before and after anesthesia and analgesia. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain degree of the two groups before anesthesia and analgesia and 6 h, 12 h, 18 h and 24 h after anesthesia and analgesia. The incidence of complications such as nausea and vomiting, elevated blood pressure, abnormal liver and kidney function, and post-cognitive dysfunction (POCD) were also recorded.

RESULTS

Time to first defecation, time to recovery of gastrointe-stinal peristalsis, and time to food intake in the observation group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Plasma motilin levels in the observation group after anesthesia and analgesia were significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). VAS scores at 6 h, 12 h, and 18 h after anesthesia and analgesia were significantly lower than those before anesthesia and analgesia in both groups, and were significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, elevated blood pressure, abnormal liver and kidney function, and POCD was significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of lumbar-sparing anesthesia and epidural analgesia in elderly patients undergoing laparo-tomy can promote the early recovery of gastrointestinal function and reduce pain, and has a low incidence of postoperative complications.