Has the publication of cardiac surgery outcome data been associated with changes in practice in northwest England: an analysis of 25,730 patients undergoing CABG surgery under 30 surgeons over eight years

Preoperative Levosimendan in Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To verify the impact of preoperative levosimendan on patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

The authors included 1,225 patients from 6 randomized controlled trials.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors performed a meta-analysis of trials that compared preoperative levosimendan with placebo or no therapy, reporting efficacy and safety endpoints. Statistical analyses used mean differences and risk ratios (RR), with a random effects model. Six studies were included, comprising 1,225 patients, of whom 615 (50.2%) received preoperative levosimendan, and 610 (49.8%) received placebo/no therapy. Preoperative levosimendan showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.16-0.60; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), postoperative acute kidney injury (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25-0.77; p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), low-cardiac-output syndrome (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30-0.66; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and postoperative atrial fibrillation (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 85%) compared to control. Moreover, levosimendan significantly reduced the need for postoperative inotropes and increased the cardiac index at 24 hours postoperatively. There were no differences between groups for perioperative myocardial infarction, hypotension, or any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative levosimendan in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with reduced all-cause mortality, low-cardiac-output syndrome, acute kidney injury, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and the need for circulatory support without compromising safety.

How do healthcare providers use national audit data for improvement?

BACKGROUND

Substantial resources are invested by Health Departments worldwide in introducing National Clinical Audits (NCAs). Yet, there is variable evidence on the NCAs' effectiveness and little is known on factors underlying the successful use of NCAs to improve local practice. This study will focus on a single NCA (the National Audit of Inpatient Falls -NAIF 2017) to explore: (i) participants' perspectives on the NCA reports, local feedback characteristics and actions undertaken following the feedback underpinning the effective use of the NCA feedback to improve local practice; (ii) reported changes in local practice following the NCA feedback in England and Wales.

METHODS

Front-line staff perspectives were gathered through interviews. An inductive qualitative approach was used. Eighteen participants were purposefully sampled from 7 of the 85 participating hospitals in England and Wales. Analysis was guided by constant comparative techniques.

RESULTS

Regarding the NAIF annual report, interviewees valued performance benchmarking with other hospitals, the use of visual representations and the inclusion of case studies and recommendations. Participants stated that feedback should target front-line healthcare professionals, be straightforward and focused, and be delivered through an encouraging and honest discussion. Interviewees highlighted the value of using other relevant data sources alongside NAIF feedback and the importance of continuous data monitoring. Participants reported that engagement of front-line staff in the NAIF and following improvement activities was critical. Leadership, ownership, management support and communication at different organisational levels were perceived as enablers, while staffing level and turnover, and poor quality improvement (QI) skills, were perceived as barriers to improvement. Reported changes in practice included increased awareness and attention to patient safety issues and greater involvement of patients and staff in falls prevention activities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scope to improve the use of NCAs by front-line staff. NCAs should not be seen as isolated interventions but should be fully embedded and integrated into the QI strategic and operational plans of NHS trusts. The use of NCAs could be optimised, but knowledge of them is poor and distributed unevenly across different disciplines. More research is needed to provide guidance on key elements to consider throughout the whole improvement process at different organisational levels.

Effective peer review audit and identification of the surgeon outlier

BACKGROUND

Surgical audit aims to identify ways to maintain and improve the quality of care for patients, in part by assessment of a surgeon's activities and outcomes. However effective data systems to facilitate audit are uncommon. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a tool for Peer Review Audit.

METHODS

All General Surgeons in Darwin and the Top End were encouraged to self-record their surgical activity, including procedures and adverse events related to procedures, using the College's Morbidity Audit and Logbook Tool (MALT).

RESULTS

A total of 6 surgeons and 3518 operative events were recorded in MALT between 2018 and 2019. De-identified reports of each surgeon's activities, compared directly to the audit group, were created by each surgeon, with correction for complexity of procedures and ASA status. Nine complications Grade 3 and greater were recorded, plus 6 deaths, 25 unplanned returns to theatre (8% failure to rescue rate), 7 unplanned admissions to ICU and 8 unplanned readmissions. One surgeon outlier was identified (>3 standard deviation over group mean) for unplanned returns to theatre. This surgeon's specific cases were reviewed at our morbidity and mortality meeting using the MALT Self Audit Report and changes were implemented as a result, with future progress monitored.

CONCLUSION

The College's MALT system effectively enabled Peer Group Audit. All participating surgeons were readily able to present and validate their own results. A surgeon outlier was reliably identified. This led to effective practice change. The proportion of surgeons who participated was low. Adverse events were likely under-reported.

Institutional variation in early mortality following isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery

BACKGROUND

Thirty-day mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a widely accepted marker for quality of care. Although surgical mortality has declined, the utility of this measure to profile quality has not been questioned. We assessed the institutional variation in risk-standardised mortality rates (RSMR) following isolated CABG within Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).

METHODS

We used an administrative dataset from all public and most private hospitals across ANZ to capture all isolated CABG procedures recorded between 2010 and 2015. The primary outcome was all-cause death occurring in-hospital or within 30-days of discharge. Hospital-specific RSMRs and 95% CI were estimated using a hierarchical generalised linear model accounting for differences in patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 60,953 patients (mean age 66.1 ± 10.1y, 18.7% female) underwent an isolated CABG across 47 hospitals. The observed early mortality rate was 1.69% (n = 1029) with 81.8% of deaths recorded in-hospital. The risk-adjustment model was developed with good discrimination (C-statistic = 0.81). Following risk-adjustment, a 3.9-fold variation was observed in RSMRs among hospitals (median:1.72%, range:0.84-3.29%). Four hospitals had RSMRs significantly higher than average, and one hospital had RSMR lower than average. When in-hospital mortality alone was considered, the median in-hospital RSMR was 1.40% with a 5.6-fold variation across institutions (range:0.57-3.19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Average mortality following isolated CABG is low across ANZ. Nevertheless, in-hospital and 30-day mortality vary among hospitals, highlighting potential disparities in care quality and the enduring usefulness of 30-day mortality as an outcome measure. Clinical and policy intervention, including participating in clinical quality registries, are needed to standardise CABG care.

Disparate Impacts of Two Public Reporting Initiatives on Clinical and Perceived Quality in Healthcare

Purpose

Transparency is increasingly viewed as a prerequisite for value-based health care that invites quality in the assessment of achieved value. However, nowadays the ability of transparency initiatives to enhance quality of care remains obscure, if not rejected. Thus, this study aims to investigate how transparency initiatives influence two types of quality of care: clinical and perceived quality.

Methods

First, factor analyses were conducted to construct three dependent variables: healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), 30-day readmission rates, and patient satisfaction. Then, the three quality models were compared by running ordinary least squares multiple regressions using STATA 14.1. The existence of heteroskedasticity was remedied by using robust standard errors.

Results

Examining general acute care hospitals in the US, the present study noted that the ability of public reporting to improve quality of care remains inconclusive and that the pursuit of transparency may lead to inadvertent results. The disclosure of all-payer claims data (APCD) was found to have the power to differentiate hospitals’ clinical and perceived quality, but it failed to reach the desired outcomes without market pressure. The impact of transparency on quality of care diverges depending on the unique characteristics of each transparency policy, even though they pursue the same ends through information dissemination. Furthermore, the same public policy showed starkly disparate impacts on clinical quality (eg, healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and 30-day readmission rates) and perceived quality (eg, patient satisfaction).

Conclusion

Despite the theoretically acknowledged merits of transparency, the present study noted that its ability to enhance quality of care remains inconclusive, and the pursuit of transparency may even inadvertently harm quality of care. While hospitals may need to finetune their strategies for each quality measurement in order to cope with the new environmental pressure, it is health policymakers’ role to coordinate those quality metrics and improve the validity of patient experience measures and surveys.

Surgeon-level variance in achieving clinical improvement after lumbar decompression: the importance of adequate risk adjustment

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores are increasingly utilized in clinical care. However, it is unclear if PROMIS can discriminate surgeon performance on an individual level.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine surgeon-level variance in rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after lumbar decompression.

PATIENT SAMPLE

This is a prospective, observational cohort study performed across a healthcare enterprise (two academic medical centers and three community centers). Patients 18 years or older undergoing one- to two-level primary decompression for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was achievement of MCID, using a distribution-based method, on paired PROMIS physical function scores.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were generated to examine the baseline characteristics of the study cohort. Bivariate analyses were used to examine the impact of surgeon-level variance on rates of MCID. Multivariable analyses were used to examine the risk-adjusted impact of surgeon-level variance on rates of MCID.

RESULTS

Overall, 636 patients treated by nine surgeons were included. The median patient age was 58 [interquartile range (IQR): 46-70] and 62.3% (n=396) were female. Among all patients, 56.9% (n=362) underwent surgery for LDH. The overall rate of achieving MCID was 75.8% (n=482). Of the surgeons, the median years in practice were 12 (range 4-31) and 55.6% (n=5) were in academic practice settings. On bivariate analysis, patients treated by one of the surgeons had lower rates of achieving MICD (odds ratio=0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.91, p=.03). However, on multivariable analysis adjusting for operative indication (LDH vs. LSS), body mass index, number of comorbidities, percent unemployment in patient zip code, and preoperative PROMIS physical function scores, all surgeons were equally likely to obtain MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, variance in PROMIS scores after primary lumbar decompression is influenced by patient-related factors and not by individual surgeon. Adequate risk adjustment is needed if ascertaining clinical improvement on an individual surgeon basis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Explaining health system responses to public reporting of cardiac surgery mortality in England and the USA

Public reporting of clinical performance is increasingly used in many countries to improve quality and enhance accountability of the health system. The assumption is that greater transparency will stimulate improvements by clinicians in response to peer pressure, patient choice or competition. The international diffusion of public reporting might suggest greater similarity between health systems. Alternatively, national and local contexts (including health system imperatives, professional power and organisational culture) might continue to shape its form and impact, implying continued divergence. The paper considers public reporting in the USA and England through the lens of Scott's 'pillars' institutional framework. The USA was arguably the first country to adopt public reporting systematically in the late 1980s. England is a more recent adopter; it is now being widely adopted through the National Health Service (NHS). Drawing on qualitative data from California and England, this paper compares the behavioural and policy responses to public reporting by health system stakeholders at micro, meso and macro levels and through the intersection of ideas, interests, institutions and individuals through. The interplay between the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars helps explain the observed patterns of on-going divergence.

Perioperative care in cardiac surgery

As mortality is now low for many cardiac surgical procedures, there has been an increasing focus on patient centered outcomes such as recovery and quality of life. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) cardiac society recently published the first set of guidelines for cardiac surgery which will be useful as a starting point to help translate this philosophy for the benefit of those undergoing cardiac surgery. At the same time there are many advances in other areas such as mechanical circulation, diagnostics and quality metrics. We intend here to present a balanced and evidenced based review of selected aspects of current practice, encompassing both UK and international perioperative care with a focus on recent advances. For the convenience of the reader we will adopt the conventional perioperative preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phases of care. The focus of cardiac surgical practice needs to evolve from mortality to recovery. Those specialists who work in cardiac anaesthesia and critical care are well placed to contribute to these changes. Accompanying this work is the development of technologies to improve recognition of and intervention to prevent early organ dysfunction. Measuring, benchmarking and publishing quality outcomes from cardiac surgical centres is likely to improve services and benefit our patients.

Requirements for a quality dashboard: Lessons from National Clinical Audits

Healthcare organizations worldwide use quality dashboards to provide feedback to clinical teams and managers, in order to monitor care quality and stimulate quality improvement. However, there is limited evidence regarding the impact of quality dashboards and audit and feedback research focuses on feedback to individual clinicians, rather than to clinical and managerial teams. Consequently, we know little about what features a quality dashboard needs in order to provide benefit. We conducted 54 interviews across five healthcare organizations in the National Health Service in England, interviewing personnel at different levels of the organization, to understand how national (UK) clinical audit data are used for quality improvement and factors that support or constrain use of these data. The findings, organized around the themes of choosing performance indicators, assessing performance, identifying causes, communicating from ward to board, and data quality, have implications for the design of quality dashboards, which we have translated into a series of requirements.

How, in what contexts, and why do quality dashboards lead to improvements in care quality in acute hospitals? Protocol for a realist feasibility evaluation

INTRODUCTION

National audits are used to monitor care quality and safety and are anticipated to reduce unexplained variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement (QI). However, variation within and between providers in the extent of engagement with national audits means that the potential for national audit data to inform QI is not being realised. This study will undertake a feasibility evaluation of QualDash, a quality dashboard designed to support clinical teams and managers to explore data from two national audits, the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) and the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Realist evaluation, which involves building, testing and refining theories of how an intervention works, provides an overall framework for this feasibility study. Realist hypotheses that describe how, in what contexts, and why QualDash is expected to provide benefit will be tested across five hospitals. A controlled interrupted time series analysis, using key MINAP and PICANet measures, will provide preliminary evidence of the impact of QualDash, while ethnographic observations and interviews over 12 months will provide initial insight into contexts and mechanisms that lead to those impacts. Feasibility outcomes include the extent to which MINAP and PICANet data are used, data completeness in the audits, and the extent to which participants perceive QualDash to be useful and express the intention to continue using it after the study period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the University of Leeds School of Healthcare Research Ethics Committee. Study results will provide an initial understanding of how, in what contexts, and why quality dashboards lead to improvements in care quality. These will be disseminated to academic audiences, study participants, hospital IT departments and national audits. If the results show a trial is feasible, we will disseminate the QualDash software through a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

Variation between hospitals in outcomes following cardiac surgery in the UK

INTRODUCTION

We examine the influence of variations in provision of cardiac surgery in the UK at hospital level on patient outcomes and also to assess whether there is an inequality of access and delivery of healthcare. Cardiothoracic surgery has pioneered the reporting of surgeon-specific outcomes, which other specialties have followed. We set out to identify factors other than the individual surgeon, which can affect outcomes and enable other surgical specialties to adopt a similar model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patient and hospital level factors between 2013 and 2016 from 16 cardiac surgical units in the UK were analysed through the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland and the Royal College of Surgeons Research Collaborative. Patient demographic data, risks factors, postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality, as well as hospital-level factors such as number of beds and operating theatres, were collected. Correlation between outcome measures was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Associations between hospital-level factors and outcomes were assessed using univariable and multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Of 50,871 patients (60.5% of UK caseload), 25% were older than 75 years and 29% were female. There was considerable variation between units in patient comorbidities, bed distribution and staffing. All hospitals had dedicated cardiothoracic intensive care beds and consultants. Median survival was 97.9% (range 96.3-98.6%). Postoperative complications included re-sternotomy for bleeding (median 4.8%; range 3.5-6.9%) and mediastinitis (0.4%; 0.1-1.0%), transient ischaemic attack/cerebrovascular accident (1.7%; range 0.3-3.0%), haemofiltration (3.7%; range 0.8-6.8%), intra-aortic balloon pump use (3.3%; range 0.4-7.4%), tracheostomy (1.6%; range 1.3-2.6%) and laparotomy (0.3%; range 0.2-0.6%). There was variation in outcomes between hospitals. Univariable analysis showed a small number of positive associations between hospital-level factors and outcomes but none remained significant in multivariable models.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations among hospital level factors exists in both delivery of, and outcomes, following cardiac surgery in the UK. However, there was no clear association between these factors and patient outcomes. This negative finding could be explained by differences in outcome definition, differences in risk factors between centres that are not captured by standard risk stratification scores or individual surgeon/team performance.

Current quality reporting methods are not adequate for salvage cardiac operations

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes in cardiac surgery are benchmarked against national Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) data and include patients undergoing elective, urgent, emergent, and salvage operations. This practice relies on accurate risk adjustment to avoid risk-averse behavior. We hypothesize that the STS risk calculator does not adequately characterize the risk of salvage operations because of their heterogeneity and infrequent occurrence.

METHODS

Data on all cardiac surgery patients with an STS predicted risk score (2002-2017) were extracted from a regional database of 19 cardiac surgery centers. Patients were stratified according to operative status for univariate analysis. Observed-to-expected (O:E) ratios for mortality and composite morbidity/mortality were calculated and compared among elective, urgent, emergent, and salvage patients.

RESULTS

A total of 76,498 patients met inclusion criteria. The O:E mortality ratios for elective, urgent, and emergent cases were 0.96, 0.98, and 0.93, respectively (all P values > .05). However, mortality rate was significantly higher than expected for salvage patients (O:E ratio, 1.41; P = .04). Composite morbidity/mortality rate was lower than expected in elective (O:E ratio, 0.81; P = .0001) and urgent (O:E ratio, 0.93; P = .0001) cases but higher for emergent (O:E ratio, 1.13; P = .0006) and salvage (O:E ratio, 1.24; P = .01). O:E ratios for salvage mortality were highly variable among each of the 19 centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current STS risk models do not adequately predict outcomes for salvage cardiac surgery patients. On the basis of these results, we recommend more detailed reporting of salvage outcomes to avoid risk aversion in these potentially life-saving operations.

Has Publishing Surgeon-Specific Outcomes Had an Impact on Training in Cardiac Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Surgeon-specific outcome data are now published for most surgical specialties in the United Kingdom. There are concerns that this initiative has had a negative impact on training. The primary objective of this study was to assess whether training activity has changed since the publication of surgeon-specific outcomes in cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for cardiac surgical procedures performed at a single center from 2004 to 2016 were analyzed. The cohort was split into two halves according to operation date. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether training activity had increased from the first to the second part of the study and to identify whether trainee first operator was associated with adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 14,054 cardiac surgical procedures were included, of which 1,777 (12.6%) had a trainee as first operator. Despite an increase in the risk profile of patients undergoing surgical procedures, the proportion of cases performed by trainees increased from 11.7% (786 of 6,708) in the first half of the study to 13.5% (991 of 7,346) in the second half of the study (p = 0.002). This effect remained after adjustment for confounding variables. Trainee first operator was not significantly associated with an increased risk of any adverse short-term outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Since surgeon-specific outcome publication began in United Kingdom, cardiac surgical training activity has significantly increased at the study center despite an increase in the risk profile of patients. This study demonstrates that it is possible to maintain or even increase training activity with good outcomes in the era of surgeon-specific outcome publication.

Barriers and opportunities to improve the foundations for high-quality healthcare in the Mexican Health System

This study aimed to describe the foundations for quality of care (QoC) in the Mexican public health sector and identify barriers to quality evaluation and improvement from the perspective of the QoC leaders of the main public health sector institutions: Ministry of Health (MoH), the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) and the Institute of Social Security of State Workers (ISSSTE). We administered a semi-structured online questionnaire that gathered information on foundations (governance, health workforce, platforms, tools and population), evaluation and improvement activities for QoC; 320 leaders from MoH, IMSS and ISSSTE participated. We used thematic content and descriptive analyses to analyse the data. We found that QoC foundations, evaluation and improvement activities pose essential challenges for the Mexican health sector. Governance for QoC is weakly aligned across MoH, IMSS and ISSSTE. Each institution follows its own agenda of evaluation and improvement programmes and has distinct QoC indicators and information systems. The institutions share similar barriers to strengthening QoC: poor organizational structure at a facility level, scarcity of financial resources, lack of training in QoC for executive/managerial staff and health professionals and limited public participation. In conclusion, a stronger legal framework and policy dialogue is needed to foster governance by the MoH, to define and align health sector-wide QoC policies, and to set common goals and articulate QoC improvement actions among institutions. Robust QoC organizational structure with designated staff and clarity on their responsibilities should be established at all levels of healthcare. Investment is necessary to fund formal and in-service QoC training programmes for health professionals and to reinforce quality evaluation and improvement activities and quality information systems. QoC evaluation results should be available to healthcare providers and the population. Active public participation in the design and implementation of improvement initiatives should be strengthened.

The effect of consultant outcome publication on surgeon behaviour: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Introduction Surgeon-specific outcome data, or consultant outcome publication, refers to public access to named surgeon procedural outcomes. Consultant outcome publication originates from cardiothoracic surgery, having been introduced to US and UK surgery in 1991 and 2005, respectively. It has been associated with an improvement in patient outcomes. However, there is concern that it may also have led to changes in surgeon behaviour. This review assesses the literature for evidence of risk-averse behaviour, upgrading of patient risk factors and cessation of low-volume or poorly performing surgeons. Materials and methods A systematic literature review of Embase and Medline databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Original studies including data on consultant outcome publication and its potential effect on surgeon behaviour were included. Results Twenty-five studies were identified from the literature search. Studies suggesting the presence of risk-averse behaviour and upgrading of risk factors tended to be survey based, with studies contrary to these findings using recognised regional and national databases. Discussion and conclusion Our review includes instances of consultant outcome publication leading to risk-averse behaviour, upgrading of risk factors and cessation of low-volume or poorly performing surgeons. As UK data on consultant outcome publication matures, further research is essential to ensure that high-risk patients are not inappropriately turned down for surgery.

Effect of public reporting of surgeons' outcomes on patient selection, "gaming," and mortality in colorectal cancer surgery in England: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of surgeon specific outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery on risk averse clinical practice, "gaming" of clinical data, and 90 day postoperative mortality.

DESIGN

National cohort study.

SETTING

English National Health Service hospital trusts.

POPULATION

111 431 patients diagnosed as having colorectal cancer from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2015 included in the National Bowel Cancer Audit.

INTERVENTION

Public reporting of surgeon specific 90 day mortality in elective colorectal cancer surgery in England introduced in June 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of patients with colorectal cancer who had an elective major resection, predicted 90 day mortality based on characteristics of patients and tumours, and observed 90 day mortality adjusted for differences in characteristics of patients and tumours, comparing patients who had surgery between April 2011 and June 2013 and between July 2013 and March 2015.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with colorectal cancer undergoing major resection did not change after the introduction of surgeon specific public outcome reporting (39 792/62 854 (63.3%) before versus 30 706/48 577 (63.2%) after; P=0.8). The proportion of these major resections categorised as elective or scheduled also did not change (33 638/39 792 (84.5%) before versus 25 905/30 706 (84.4%) after; P=0.5). The predicted 90 day mortality remained the same (2.7% v 2.7%; P=0.3), but the observed 90 day mortality fell (952/33 638 (2.8%) v 552/25 905 (2.1%)). Change point analysis showed that this reduction was over and above the existing downward trend in mortality before the introduction of public outcome reporting (P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find evidence that the introduction of public reporting of surgeon specific 90 day postoperative mortality in elective colorectal cancer surgery has led to risk averse clinical practice behaviour or "gaming" of data. However, its introduction coincided with a significant reduction in 90 day mortality.

Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector

OBJECTIVES

National mandatory public performance reporting (PPR) for Australian public hospitals, including measures of cancer surgery waiting times, was introduced in 2011. PPR is voluntary for private hospitals. The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data is used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer when selecting a hospital for elective surgery and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs.

DESIGN

A national cross-sectional postal questionnaire.

SETTING

Australian private healthcare sector.

PARTICIPANTS

Private patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital for elective surgery (n=243) in 2016.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' choice of hospital, use of PPR information and preferred areas of PPR information. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-eight respondents (94%) attended a private hospital. Almost half could choose a hospital. Choice of hospital was not influenced by PPR data (92% unaware) but by their specialist (90%). Respondents considered PPR to be important (71%) but they did not want to see the information, preferring their general practitioners (GPs) to tell them about it (40%). Respondents considered surgery costs (59%), complications (58%) and recovery success rates (57%) to be important areas of information that should be publicly reported. Almost half suggested that quality indicators should be reported at the individual clinician level. Analysis of the open-ended questions identified four themes: (1) decision-making factors; (2) data credibility; (3) unmet information needs and (4) unintended consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

PPR of hospital data had no substantial impact on patients' choice of hospital. Nonetheless, many respondents expressed interest in using it in future. To increase PPR awareness and usability, personalised and integrated information on cost and quality of hospitals is required. Dissemination of PPR information via specialists and GPs could assist patients to interpret the data and support decision-making.

Should interventions to reduce variation in care quality target doctors or hospitals?

•

Performance management initiatives are increasingly targeting individual doctors as well as hospitals.

•

Less than 25% of variation in clinical outcomes is attributable to providers.

•

More variation in clinical outcomes is associated with doctors than with hospitals.

•

Performance estimates for individual doctors are unreliable due to small samples.

Interventions to reduce variation in care quality are increasingly targeted at both individual doctors and the organisations in which they work. Concerns remain about the scope and consequences for such performance management, the relative contribution of individuals and organisations to observed variation, and whether performance can be measured reliably.

This study explores these issues in the context of the English National Health Service by analysing comprehensive administrative data for all patients treated for four clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, hip fracture, pneumonia, ischemic stroke) and two surgical procedures (coronary artery bypass, hip replacement) during April 2010–February 2013. Performance indicators are defined as 30-day mortality, 28-day emergency readmission and inpatient length of stay. Three-level hierarchical generalised linear mixed models are estimated to attribute variation in case-mix adjusted indicators to individual doctors and hospital organisations.

Except for length of stay after hip replacement, no more than 11% of variation in case-mix adjusted performance indicators can be attributed to doctors and organisations with the rest reflecting random chance and unobserved patient factors. Doctor variation exceeds hospital variation by a factor of 1.2 or more. However, identifying poor performance amongst doctors is hampered by insufficient numbers of cases per doctor to reliably estimate their individual performances. Policy makers and regulators should therefore be cautious when targeting individual doctors in performance improvement initiatives.

Mapping standard ophthalmic outcome sets to metrics currently reported in eight eye hospitals

BACKGROUND

To determine alignment of proposed international standard outcomes sets for ophthalmic conditions to metrics currently reported by eye hospitals.

METHODS

Mixed methods comparative benchmark study, including eight eye hospitals in Australia, India, Singapore, Sweden, U.K., and U.S. All are major international tertiary care and training centers in ophthalmology. Main outcome measure is consistency of ophthalmic outcomes measures reported.

RESULTS

International agreed standard outcomes (ICHOM) sets are available for cataract surgery (10 metrics) and macular degeneration (7 metrics). The eight hospitals reported 22 different metrics for cataract surgery and 2 for macular degeneration, which showed only limited overlap with the proposed ICHOM metrics. None of the hospitals reported patient reported visual functioning or vision-related quality of life outcomes measures (PROMs). Three hospitals (38%) reported rates for uncomplicated cataract surgeries only. There was marked variation in how and at what point postoperatively visual outcomes following cataract, cornea, glaucoma, strabismus and oculoplastics procedures were reported. Seven (87.5%) measured post-operative infections and four (50%) measured 30 day unplanned reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes reporting for ophthalmic conditions currently widely varies across hospitals internationally and does not include patient-reported outcomes. Reaching consensus on measures and consistency in data collection will allow meaningful comparisons and provide an evidence base enabling improved sharing of "best practices" to improve eye care globally. Implementation of international standards is still a major challenge and practice-based knowledge on measures should be one of the inputs of the international standardization process.

Changing experience of adverse medical events in the National Health Service: Comparison of two population surveys in 2001 and 2013

Care quality is important to patients and providers, but is hard to measure. This study aimed to examine changes in the frequency and severity of one quality measure - adverse events associated with medical care - in Great Britain over a 12-year period when available resources initially expanded and were subsequently constrained. Data on perceived adverse events, collected from two representative population surveys in 2001 and 2013, were analysed and compared. The samples consisted of 8202 adults aged 15 and over in 2001 and 19,746 adults aged 15 and over in 2013. The main outcome measures were self-reported illness, injury or impairment caused in the opinion of the respondent by medical treatment or care. Respondents were also asked about the perceived severity of harm in terms of health and work, and any actions taken in response. The proportion of all respondents reporting that over the last three years they had suffered some illness, injury or impairment that in their opinion was caused by their medical treatment or care was 2.5% (497/19746) in 2013, compared with 4.8% (391/8202) in 2001, a reduction of 33% after adjusting for age, gender, income and social class differences between the two surveys. Perceived impact on health and work of these events was similar in both surveys, as was the proportion of injured respondents who pursued a legal claim for financial compensation, at 11% (53/497) in 2013 and 10.5% (41/391) in 2001. We also report multivariate analyses of perceived harm rates and severity, and propensity to seek, and accept, compensation. Our results suggest that the NHS became significantly safer over this period when measured by patient perceived harm from medical care. Our survey method could provide a valuable contribution to the monitoring of trends in health-care related adverse events and the impact of patient safety initiatives.

Levosimendan for patients with severely reduced left ventricular systolic function and/or low cardiac output syndrome undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown beneficial effects of levosimendan in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Two large randomized controlled trials (RCTs), however, showed no advantages of levosimendan.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (MEDLINE and Embase from inception until March 30, 2017), investigating whether levosimendan offers advantages compared with placebo in high-risk cardiac surgery patients, as defined by preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and/or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). The primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and need for postoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT). Secondary postoperative outcomes investigated included myocardial injury, supraventricular arrhythmias, development of LCOS, acute kidney injury (AKI), duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and incidence of hypotension during drug infusion.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, five of which investigated only patients with LVEF ≤ 35% and one of which included predominantly patients with LCOS. Mortality was similar overall (OR 0.64 [0.37, 1.11], p = 0.11) but lower in the subgroup with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.51 [0.32, 0.82], p = 0.005). Need for RRT was reduced by levosimendan both overall (OR 0.63 [0.42, 0.94], p = 0.02) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (OR 0.55 [0.31, 0.97], p = 0.04). Among secondary outcomes, we found lower postoperative LCOS in patients with LVEF < 35% receiving levosimendan (OR 0.49 [0.27, 0.89], p = 0.02), lower overall AKI (OR 0.62 [0.42, 0.92], p = 0.02), and a trend toward lower mechanical support, both overall (p = 0.07) and in patients with LVEF < 35% (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Levosimendan reduces mortality in patients with preoperative severely reduced LVEF but does not affect overall mortality. Levosimendan reduces the need for RRT after high-risk cardiac surgery.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients

AIMS

New generation dual-source coronary CT (NGCCT) scanners with more than 64 slices were evaluated for patients with (known) or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) who are difficult to image: obese, coronary calcium score > 400, arrhythmias, previous revascularization, heart rate > 65 beats per minute, and intolerance of betablocker. A cost-effectiveness analysis of NGCCT compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed for these difficult-to-image patients for England and Wales.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Five models (diagnostic decision model, four Markov models for CAD progression, stroke, radiation and general population) were integrated to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for both suspected and known CAD populations. The lifetime costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective were estimated for three strategies: (1) patients diagnosed using ICA, (2) using NGCCT, and (3) patients diagnosed using a combination of NGCCT and, if positive, followed by ICA. In the suspected population, the strategy where patients only undergo a NGCCT is a cost-effective option at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. The strategy of using NGCCT in combination with ICA is the most favourable strategy for patients with known CAD. The most influential factors behind these results are the percentage of patients being misclassified (a function of both diagnostic accuracy and the prior likelihood), the complication rates of the procedures, and the cost price of a NGCCT scan.

CONCLUSION

The use of NGCCT might be considered cost-effective in both populations since it is cost-saving compared to ICA and generates similar effects.

Levosimendan in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Levosimendan is an inotropic agent that has been shown in small studies to prevent or treat the low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous levosimendan (at a dose of 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute for 1 hour, followed by a dose of 0.1 μg per kilogram per minute for 23 hours) or placebo, with the infusion started before surgery. The two primary end points were a four-component composite of death through day 30, renal-replacement therapy through day 30, perioperative myocardial infarction through day 5, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5; and a two-component composite of death through day 30 or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device through day 5.

RESULTS

A total of 882 patients underwent randomization, 849 of whom received levosimendan or placebo and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The four-component primary end point occurred in 105 of 428 patients (24.5%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 103 of 421 (24.5%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.54; P=0.98). The two-component primary end point occurred in 56 patients (13.1%) assigned to receive levosimendan and in 48 (11.4%) assigned to receive placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 96% CI, 0.76 to 1.82; P=0.45). The rate of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic levosimendan did not result in a rate of the short-term composite end point of death, renal-replacement therapy, perioperative myocardial infarction, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device that was lower than the rate with placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. (Funded by Tenax Therapeutics; LEVO-CTS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02025621 .).

Hospital Surgical Volumes and Mortality after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Using International Comparisons to Determine a Safe Threshold

OBJECTIVE

To estimate a safe minimum hospital volume for hospitals performing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Hospital data on all publicly funded CABG in five European countries, 2007-2009 (106,149 patients).

DESIGN

Hierarchical logistic regression models to estimate the relationship between hospital volume and mortality, allowing for case mix. Segmented regression analysis to estimate a threshold.

FINDINGS

The 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 3.0 percent overall, 5.2 percent (95 percent CI: 4.0-6.4) in low-volume hospitals, and 2.1 percent (95 percent CI: 1.8-2.3) in high-volume hospitals. There is a significant curvilinear relationship between volume and mortality, flatter above 415 cases per hospital per year.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear relationship between hospital CABG volume and mortality in Europe, implying a "safe" threshold volume of 415 cases per year.

Reporting individual surgeon outcomes does not lead to risk aversion in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

INTRODUCTION Reporting surgeons' outcomes has recently been introduced in the UK. This has the potential to result in surgeons becoming risk averse. The aim of this study was to investigate whether reporting outcomes for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery impacts on the number and risk profile (level of fitness) of patients offered elective treatment. METHODS Publically available National Vascular Registry data were used to compare the number of AAAs treated in those centres across the UK that reported outcomes for the periods 2008-2012, 2009-2013 and 2010-2014. Furthermore, the number and characteristics of patients referred for consideration of elective AAA repair at a single tertiary unit were analysed yearly between 2010 and 2014. Clinic, casualty and theatre event codes were searched to obtain all AAAs treated. The results of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) were assessed. RESULTS For the 85 centres that reported outcomes in all three five-year periods, the median number of AAAs treated per unit increased between the periods 2008-2012 and 2010-2014 from 192 to 214 per year (p=0.006). In the single centre cohort study, the proportion of patients offered elective AAA repair increased from 74% in 2009-2010 to 81% in 2013-2014, with a maximum of 84% in 2012-2013. The age, aneurysm size and CPET results (anaerobic threshold levels) for those eventually offered elective treatment did not differ significantly between 2010 and 2014. CONCLUSIONS The results do not support the assumption that reporting individual surgeon outcomes is associated with a risk averse strategy regarding patient selection in aneurysm surgery at present.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Background

The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.

Objectives

To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.

Design

Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.

Interventions

Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.

Main outcome measures

Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.

Review methods

Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.

Results

Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.

Strengths and limitations

There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.

Conclusions

PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.

Future work

Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Mandatory national quality improvement systems using indicators: An initial assessment in Europe and Israel

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement systems (QIS) that are based on empirical performance assessment have increasingly been implemented as a mandatory part of health systems across countries. This study aims to describe national mandatory QIS in Europe in 2014.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant national agencies for national mandatory QIS in Europe were identified through online searches and key informants. A questionnaire was compiled during a workshop with these agencies and filled out by representatives from these particular agencies.

RESULTS

Agencies in charge of national mandatory QIS in seven countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Scotland, Sweden and Switzerland) were included in the study. An analysis of QIS revealed similarities, such as the use of routine data for performance assessment and the aim to hold healthcare providers accountable. Differences relate to the different forms of feedback systems and improvement mechanisms used. Trends include the development towards greater implementation of QIS within health systems, the inclusion of the patient's perspective in performance assessment, and experiments with pay for performance-related measures.

CONCLUSION

On a country level, for health systems striving for newly implementing QIS it is recommended to start where routine data is available, add qualitative methodologies once the QIS is getting more complex, report performance data back to service providers and be patient centred. On the inter-country level exchange of information between agencies commissioned with implementing national QIS is very much needed for.

Guidance on feedback of outcome data to improve performance in vascular surgery

Feedback of performance data is a well-established method of performance improvement in the health-care setting, although guidance has been limited in the context of surgical performance. This article outlines how optimal feedback can be achieved using surgeon outcome data.

How is feedback from national clinical audits used? Views from English National Health Service trust audit leads

Objective

To explore how the output of national clinical audits in England is used by professionals and whether and how their impact could be enhanced.

Methods

A mixed-methods study with the primary recipients of four national clinical audits of cancer care of 607 local audit leads, 274 (45%) completed a questionnaire and 32 participated in an interview. Our questions focused on how the audits were used and whether barriers existed to using the audits for local service improvement. We described variation in questionnaire responses between the audits using chi-squared tests. Results are reported as percentages with their 95% confidence intervals. Qualitative data were analysed using Framework analysis.

Results

More than 90% of survey respondents believed that the audit findings were relevant to their clinical work, and interviewees described how they used the audits for a range of purposes. Forty-two percent of survey respondents said they had changed their clinical practice, and 56% had implemented service improvements in response to the audits. The degree of change differed between the four audits, evident in both the questionnaire and the interview data. In the interviews, two recurring barriers emerged: (1) the importance of data quality, which, in turn, influenced the perceived relevance and validity of the audit data and therefore the ability to make changes based on it and (2) the need for clear presentation of benchmarked local performance data. The perceived authority and credibility of the professional bodies supporting the audits was a key factor underpinning the use of the audit findings.

Conclusion

National cancer audit and feedback is used to improve services, but their impact could be enhanced by improving the data quality and relevance of feedback.

Hip Arthroplasty: Back to the Future?

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

Publication of surgeon specific outcome data: a review of implementation, controversies and the potential impact on surgical training

Government-mandated publication of named surgeon-specific outcome data (SSD) has recently been introduced across nine surgical speciality areas in England. This move is the first time that such national data has been released in any country, and it promises to provide a significant advancement in health service transparency. Data is derived from nine preexisting national surgical audit databases. However, eight of these were not originally designed for this purpose, and there is considerable controversy surrounding data quality, risk adjustment, patient use and interpretation, and surgeons' subsequent case selection. Concerns also surround the degree to which these results truly reflect the individual consultant, or the wider hospital team and accompanying resources. The potential impact on surgical training has largely been overlooked. This paper investigated the background to SSD publication and controversies surrounding this, the potential impact on surgical training and the response to these concerns from medical and surgical leaders. As SSD collection continues to be refined, the most appropriate outcomes measurements need to be established, and risk adjustment requires ongoing improvement and validation. Prospective evaluation of changes in surgical training should be undertaken, as any degradation of will have both short and long-term consequences for patients and surgeons alike. It is important that the literature supporting the safety of supervised trainee practice is also promoted in order to counterbalance any potential concerns that might detract from trainee operating opportunities. Finally, it is important that outcomes data is communicated to patients in the most meaningful way in order to facilitate their understanding and interpretation given the complexities of the data and analysis involved.

From harm to hope and purposeful action: what could we do after Francis?

Responses to the reports on the inquiry into Mid Staffordshire have resulted in calls from politicians, NHS leaders and the public to improve care across the NHS in England. However, the substance of what needs to be done remains unclear. In this paper, we offer seven key 'ingredients' required to sustain improvement of care, supported by evidence drawn from published literature. We believe that empowering and upskilling the front-line workforce in understanding and implementing improvement techniques, supported by changes at system and policy level and reinforced by what leaders say and do, will result in sustainable benefit for patients and families, as well as greater satisfaction for staff.

Ranking and rankability of hospital postoperative mortality rates in colorectal cancer surgery

OBJECTIVES

To examine to what extent random variation and variation in case-mix influence hospital rankings on the basis of mortality rates and to determine the suitability of mortality for ranking hospitals in colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

Comparing and ranking postoperative mortality rates between hospitals becomes increasingly popular. Differences in hospital case-mix, and chance variation related to caseload, may influence rankings. The suitability of mortality for rankings remains unclear.

METHODS

Data were derived from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Hospital rankings based on fixed- and random-effects logistic regression models, unadjusted and adjusted for case-mix were compared with the percentile based on expected ranks (the chance that a hospital performs better than a random hospital). Rankability, measuring which part of variation between hospitals is not due to chance, was calculated.

RESULTS

Some 25,591 patients undergoing colorectal resections in 92 hospitals were evaluated. Postoperative mortality rates ranged between 0% and 8.8%. Adjustment for case-mix with a fixed-effects model caused large changes in rankings. A smaller additional effect on changes in rankings occurred after adjusting with a random-effects model, with lower volume hospitals moving toward the mean. Percentile based on expected ranks ranged between 10% and 85%. Rankability was 38%, meaning that 62% of hospital variation in mortality was due to chance.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital ranks changed after case-mix adjustment and random-effects models, compared with unadjusted analysis. A large proportion of hospital variation in mortality was due to chance. Caution should be warranted when interpreting hospital rankings on the basis of postoperative mortality. Percentiles of expected ranks may help identify hospitals with exceptional performance.

Approaches based on behavioral economics could help nudge patients and providers toward lower health spending growth

Policies that change the environment or context in which decisions are made and "nudge" people toward particular choices have been relatively ignored in health care. This article examines the role that approaches based on behavioral economics could play in "nudging" providers and patients in ways that could slow health care spending growth. The basic insight of behavioral economics is that behavior is guided by the very fallible human brain and greatly influenced by the environment or context in which choices are made. In policy arenas such as pensions and personal savings, approaches based on behavioral economics have provided notable results. In health care, such approaches have been used successfully but in limited ways, as in the use of surgical checklists that have increased patient safety and reduced costs. With health care spending climbing at unsustainable rates, we review the role that approaches based on behavioral economics could play in offering policy makers a potential set of new tools to slow spending growth.

The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use and utility of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research since 2005 and to determine if any particular feature of studies found led to greater data acquisition.

DESIGN

PRISMA compliant systematic review.

PARTICIPANTS

An extensive literature search was performed of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, psychINFO, BNI, AMED, HMIC and Health business elite databases from January 2005 to January 2013 using terms 'Freedom of information', 'Freedom of information act' and 'Freedom of information act 2000'. Papers were considered for publication if they described utilising the UK Freedom of information act to gather data for healthcare research. 16 articles met these criteria.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the number and characteristics of studies utilising the Freedom of Information Act to collect the data for healthcare research. Secondary outcome measures were any features that improved data acquisition rates (including to whom the request was made, the number of questions asked per request, etc.)

RESULTS

16 articles described utilising the Freedom of Information Act for healthcare research, and these investigated a broad range of topics. The median number of requests made was 86 (range 1-172), the total number of requests was 1732. A total of 15 817 pieces of data were retrieved by all studies. The amount of data collected was defined as the number of questions asked multiplied by the number of full responses. A median of five questions were asked per study (range 5-6.5) and the overall response rate was 86%. The National Health Service litigation authority responded to 100% of requests, while Primary Care Trusts had the lowest response rate of 81% for healthcare bodies. A positive correlation between number of requests made and data obtained (0.508, p<0.05) and number of requests made and increased response rate (0.737, p<0.01), both reached the statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should make greater use of the Act to access the information they need that is not otherwise disclosed. We discuss the issues with the research utilising the Act and how future research of this type could be optimised.

A Review of Recent Advances in Perioperative Patient Safety

Major complications in surgery affect up to 16% of surgical procedures. Over the past 50 years, many patient safety initiatives have attempted to reduce such complications. Since the formation of the National Patient Safety Agency in 2001, there have been major advances in patient safety. Most recently, the production and implementation of the Surgical Safety Checklist by the World Health Organisation (WHO), a checklist ensuring that certain ‘never events’ (wrong-site surgery, wrong operation etc.) do not occur, irrespective of healthcare allowance. In this review, a summary of recent advances in patient safety are considered – including improvements in communication, understanding of human factors that cause mistakes, and strategies developed to minimise these. Additionally, the synthesis of best medical practice and harm minimisation is examined, with particular emphasis on communication and appreciation of human factors in the operating theatre. This is based on the resource management systems developed in other high risk industries (e.g. nuclear), and has also been adopted for other high risk medical areas. The WHO global movement to reduce surgical mortality has been highly successful, especially in the healthcare systems of developing nations where mortality reductions of up to 50% have been observed, and reductions in patient complications of 4%. Incident reporting has long been a key component of patient safety and continues to be so; allowing reflection and improved guideline formation. All patients are placed at risk in the surgical environment. It is crucial that this risk is minimised, whilst optimising the patient's outcome. In this review, recent advances in perioperative patient safety are examined and placed in context.