Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST) - avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in UK surgical settings and barriers and facilitators influencing their implementation: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

High-quality surgical care is vital to deliver the excellent outcomes patients deserve following surgical treatment. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are based on a multicentre model for improving healthcare. They are increasingly used but their effectiveness in the context of surgical services is unclear. This review assessed effectiveness of QICs in National Health Service (NHS) surgical settings, and identified factors that influenced implementation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as grey literature, was conducted in January 2022 to identify evaluations of QICs in NHS surgical settings. Data were extracted on the intervention, setting, study results and factors that were identified as facilitators or barriers. These were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The quality of study reports was assessed using Quality Improvement Minimum Criteria Set.

RESULTS

Fifteen reports on 10 QICs met inclusion criteria. The evaluations used study designs of different strength, with one using a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eight studies reported the QIC had been successful in achieving their principal aims, which covered a mix of patient outcomes and process indicators. The study based on the RCT found the QIC was not successful (no improvement in patient outcomes). Each article reported a range of facilitators and barriers to effectiveness of implementation of the QIC, which were spread across the CFIR domains (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals and process). There were few barriers reported in the intervention domain that related to the QIC. There was no clear relationship between numbers of facilitators and barriers reported and effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies have reported QICs to be effective in increasingly complex contexts, but their results must be treated with caution. The evaluations often used weak study designs and the quality of reports was variable. Evaluation with strong study design should be integral to future QICs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022324970.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST)—avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to introduce change in the NHS

Background

The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to implement large-scale change in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, specifically for improving outcomes in patients undergoing primary, elective total hip or knee replacement.

Methods

We undertook a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the roll-out of two preoperative pathways: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) decolonisation (infection arm) and anaemia screening and treatment (anaemia arm). NHS Trusts are public sector organisations that provide healthcare within a geographical area. NHS Trusts (n = 41) in England providing primary, elective total hip and knee replacements, but that did not have a preoperative anaemia screening or MSSA decolonisation pathway in place, were randomised to one of the two parallel collaboratives. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. Twenty-seven Trusts completed the trial (11 anaemia, 16 infection). Outcome data were collected for procedures performed between November 2018 and November 2019.

Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infection (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days post-surgery) for the anaemia and infection trial arms, respectively. Secondary outcomes were deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of hospital stay, critical care admissions and unplanned readmissions. Process measures included the proportion of eligible patients receiving each preoperative initiative.

Results

There were 19,254 procedures from 27 NHS Trusts included in the results (6324 from 11 Trusts in the anaemia arm, 12,930 from 16 Trusts in the infection arm). There were no improvements observed for blood transfusion (anaemia arm 183 (2.9%); infection arm 302 (2.3%) transfusions; adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 0.52–2.75, p = 0.67) or MSSA deep SSI (anaemia arm 8 (0.13%); infection arm 18 (0.14%); adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.42–2.46, p = 0.98). There were no significant improvements in any secondary outcome. This is despite process measures showing the preoperative pathways were implemented for 73.7% and 61.1% of eligible procedures in the infection and anaemia arms, respectively.

Conclusions

Quality improvement collaboratives did not result in improved patient outcomes in this trial; however, there was some evidence they may support successful implementation of new preoperative pathways in the NHS.

Trial registration

Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018, ISRCTN11085475

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01193-9.

Differences in mortality and complication rates following revision knee arthroplasty performed for urgent versus elective indications

AIMS

To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578-1585.