Days at Home after Surgery: An Integrated and Efficient Outcome Measure for Clinical Trials and Quality Assurance

Max Bell, Lars I Eriksson, Tobias Svensson, Linn Hallqvist, Fredrik Granath, Jennifer Reilly, Paul S Myles, Max Bell, Lars I Eriksson, Tobias Svensson, Linn Hallqvist, Fredrik Granath, Jennifer Reilly, Paul S Myles

Abstract

Background: Surgical audit, sometimes including public reporting, is an important foundation of high quality health care. We aimed to assess the validity of a novel outcome metric, days at home up to 30 days after surgery, as a surgical outcome measure in clinical trials and quality assurance.

Methods: This was a multicentre, registry-based cohort study. We used prospectively collected hospital and national healthcare registry data obtained from patients aged 18 years or older undergoing a broad range of surgeries in Sweden over a 10-year period. The association between days at home up to 30 days after surgery and patient (older age, poorer physical status, comorbidity) and surgical (elective or non-elective, complexity, duration) risk factors, process of care outcomes (re-admissions, discharge destination), clinical outcomes (major complications, 30-day mortality) and death up to 1 year after surgery were measured.

Findings: From January, 2005, to December, 2014, we obtained demographic and perioperative data on 636,885 patients from 21 Swedish hospitals. Mortality at 30 days and one year was 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The median (IQR) days at home up to 30 days after surgery was 27 (23-29), being significantly lower among high-risk patients, those recovering from more complex surgical procedures, and suffering serious postoperative complications (all p < 0.0001). Patients with 8 days or less at home up to 30 days after surgery had a nearly 7-fold higher risk of death up to 1 year postoperatively when compared with those with 29 or 30 days at home (adjusted HR 6.78 [95% CI: 6.44-7.13]).

Interpretation: Days at home up to 30 days after surgery is a valid, easy to measure patient-centred outcome metric. It is highly sensitive to changes in surgical risk and impact of complications, and has prognostic importance; it is therefore a valuable endpoint for perioperative clinical trials and quality assurance.

Funding: Swedish National Research Council Medicine and Stockholm County Council ALF-project grant (LE), and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (PM).

Keywords: Anaesthesia; Audit; Patient-reported outcome measures; Postoperative complications; Surgery; Survival.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient flow.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
One-year Kaplan–Meier survival plots according to the number of days at home up to 30 days after surgery (DAH30), excluding deaths that occur within the first 30 days (both elective and non-elective surgery).

References

    1. Lynn J., McKethan A., Jha A.K. Value-based payments require valuing what matters to patients. JAMA. 2015;314(14):1445–1446.
    1. Lavallee D.C., Chenok K.E., Love R.M. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(4):575–582.
    1. Porter M.E. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–2481.
    1. Hinami K., Bilimoria K.Y., Kallas P.G., Simons Y.M., Christensen N.P., Williams M.V. Patient experiences after hospitalizations for elective surgery. Am J Surg. 2014;207(6):855–862.
    1. Birkmeyer J.D., Gust C., Dimick J.B., Birkmeyer N.J., Skinner J.S. Hospital quality and the cost of inpatient surgery in the United States. Ann Surg. 2012;255(1):1–5.
    1. Berwick D.M., Nolan T.W., Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27(3):759–769.
    1. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet. 1996;347(9007):984–985.
    1. Bruce J., Russell E.M., Mollison J., Krukowski Z.H. The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(22):1–194.
    1. Austin J.M., McGlynn E.A., Pronovost P.J. Fostering transparency in outcomes, quality, safety, and costs. JAMA. 2016;316(16):1661–1662.
    1. Macleod M.R., Michie S., Roberts I. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101–104.
    1. Nashef S.A.M., Powell S., Jenkins D.P., Fynn S., Hall R. Crying wolf: the misuse of hospital data. Lancet. 2017;390(10091):227–228.
    1. Ghaferi A.A., Birkmeyer J.D., Dimick J.B. Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1368–1375.
    1. Schuster M.A., Onorato S.E., Meltzer D.O. Measuring the cost of quality measurement: a missing link in quality strategy. Jama. 2017;318(13):1219–1220.
    1. Chernew M.E., Landrum M.B. Targeted supplemental data collection — addressing the quality-measurement conundrum. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(11):979–981.
    1. Hyder J.A., Hirschberg R.E., Nguyen L.L. Home discharge as a performance metric for surgery. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(2):96–97.
    1. Glance L.G., Kellermann A.L., Osler T.M. Hospital readmission after noncardiac surgery: the role of major complications. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(5):439–445.
    1. Gupta A., Allen L.A., Bhatt D.L. Association of the hospital readmissions reduction program implementation with readmission and mortality outcomes in heart failure. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(1):44–53.
    1. Berian J.R., Mohanty S., Ko C.Y., Rosenthal R.A., Robinson T.N. Association of loss of independence with readmission and death after discharge in older patients after surgical procedures. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9)
    1. Fried T.R., Bradley E.H., Towle V.R., Allore H. Understanding the treatment preferences of seriously ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(14):1061–1066.
    1. Boney O., Bell M., Bell N. Identifying research priorities in anaesthesia and perioperative care: final report of the joint National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia/James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12)
    1. Burns K.E., Jacob S.K., Aguirre V., Gomes J., Mehta S., Rizvi L. Stakeholder engagement in trial design: survey of visitors to critically ill patients regarding preferences for outcomes and treatment options during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13(11):1962–1968.
    1. Hannah D., Lindholm B., Maisch L. Certain uncertainty: life after stroke from the patient's perspective. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(6):968–969.
    1. Xian Y., O'Brien E.C., Fonarow G.C. Patient-centered research into outcomes stroke patients prefer and effectiveness research: implementing the patient-driven research paradigm to aid decision making in stroke care. Am Heart J. 2015;170(1):36–45. [.e1-11]
    1. Barnett M.L., Grabowski D.C., Mehrotra A. Home-to-home time — measuring what matters to patients and payers. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(1):4–6.
    1. Ariti C.A., Cleland J.G., Pocock S.J. Days alive and out of hospital and the patient journey in patients with heart failure: insights from the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. Am Heart J. 2011;162(5):900–906.
    1. Wasywich C.A., Gamble G.D., Whalley G.A., Doughty R.N. Understanding changing patterns of survival and hospitalization for heart failure over two decades in New Zealand: utility of 'days alive and out of hospital' from epidemiological data. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12(5):462–468.
    1. Xian Y., Wu J., O'Brien E.C. Real world effectiveness of warfarin among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation: observational analysis from Patient-Centered Research into Outcomes Stroke Patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research (PROSPER) study. BMJ. 2015;351
    1. Ellis G., Whitehead M.A., Robinson D., O'Neill D., Langhorne P. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older adults admitted to hospital: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d6553.
    1. Myles P.S., Shulman M.A., Heritier S. Validation of days at home as an outcome measure after surgery: a prospective cohort study in Australia. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8)
    1. Lunde A.S., Lundeborg S., Lettenstrom G.S., Thygesen L., Huebner J. vol. 84. 1980. The person-number systems of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Israel; pp. 1–59. (Vital and health statistics series 2, data evaluation and methods research).
    1. Johansson L.A., Bjorkenstam C., Westerling R. Unexplained differences between hospital and mortality data indicated mistakes in death certification: an investigation of 1,094 deaths in Sweden during 1995. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(11):1202–1209.
    1. Charlson M.E., Pompei P., Ales K.L., MacKenzie C.R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.
    1. Ludvigsson J.F., Andersson E., Ekbom A. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:450.
    1. ASA House of Delegates ASA physical status classification system. 2014.
    1. Powell J.T., Sweeting M.J., Ulug P. Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm OVER 5 years. Br J Surg. 2017;104(3):166–178.
    1. Lovegrove R.E., Javid M., Magee T.R., Galland R.B. A meta-analysis of 21,178 patients undergoing open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg. 2008;95(6):677–684.
    1. Greenhalgh R.M., Brown L.C., Kwong G.P., Powell J.T., Thompson S.G. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9437):843–848.
    1. Collins G.S., Jibawi A., McCulloch P. Control chart methods for monitoring surgical performance: a case study from gastro-oesophageal surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(6):473–480.
    1. Groff A.C., Colla C.H., Lee T.H. Days spent at home - a patient-centered goal and outcome. N Engl J Med. 2017;375(17):1610–1612.
    1. Khuri S.F., Henderson W.G., DePalma R.G., Mosca C., Healey N.A., Kumbhani D.J. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg. 2005;242(3):326–341. [discussion 41-3]
    1. Shulman M.A., Myles P.S., Chan M.T., McIlroy D.R., Wallace S., Ponsford J. Measurement of disability-free survival after surgery. Anesthesiology. 2015;122(3):524–536.
    1. Myles P.S., Peyton P., Silbert B., Hunt J., Rigg J.R., Sessler D.I. Perioperative epidural analgesia for major abdominal surgery for cancer and recurrence-free survival: randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;342:d1491.
    1. Haynes A.B., Weiser T.G., Berry W.R. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):491–499.
    1. Lovegrove J., Valencia O., Treasure T., Sherlaw-Johnson C., Gallivan S. Monitoring the results of cardiac surgery by variable life-adjusted display. Lancet. 1997;350(9085):1128–1130.
    1. Public reporting of surgical outcomesLancet. 2011;377(9772):1126.
    1. Meyer G.S., Nelson E.C., Pryor D.B. More quality measures versus measuring what matters: a call for balance and parsimony. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(11):964–968.
    1. Gan F.F., Tang X., Zhu Y., Lim P.W. Monitoring the quality of cardiac surgery based on three or more surgical outcomes using a new variable life-adjusted display. International J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(3):427–432.
    1. Aylin P., Alves B., Best N. Comparison of UK paediatric cardiac surgical performance by analysis of routinely collected data 1984–96: was Bristol an outlier? Lancet. 2001;358(9277):181–187.
    1. Carter D.J. Correcting the record: Australian prosecutions for manslaughter in the medical context. J Law Med. 2015;22(3):588–609.
    1. Dekker S.W., Hugh T.B. A just culture after mid Staffordshire. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(5):356–358.
    1. Pearse R.M., Moreno R.P., Bauer P. Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7-day cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380(9847):1059–1065.
    1. Stark J., Gallivan S., Lovegrove J. Mortality rates after surgery for congenital heart defects in children and surgeons' performance. Lancet. 2000;355(9208):1004–1007.
    1. DeLancey J.O., Softcheck J., Chung J.W., Barnard C., Dahlke A.R., Bilimoria K.Y. Associations between hospital characteristics, measure reporting, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings. JAMA. 2017;317(19):2015–2017.
    1. Nishikawa G., Prasad V. Diagnostic expansion in clinical trials: myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer recurrence, and metastases may not be the hard endpoints you thought they were. Bmj. 2018;362
    1. Terragni P.P., Antonelli M., Fumagalli R. Early vs late tracheotomy for prevention of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2010;303(15):1483–1489.
    1. Barnett M.L., Hsu J., McWilliams J.M. Patient characteristics and differences in hospital readmission rates. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1803–1812.
    1. Ahmed J., Khan S., Lim M., Chandrasekaran T.V., MacFie J. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols — compliance and variations in practice during routine colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(9):1045–1051.
    1. Group EC The impact of enhanced recovery protocol compliance on elective colorectal cancer resection: results from an international registry. Ann Surg. 2015;261(6):1153–1159.
    1. Sheingold S.H., Zuckerman R., Shartzer A. Understanding Medicare hospital readmission rates and differing penalties between safety-net and other hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(1):124–131.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere