The Association Between Risk Aversion of Surgeons and Their Clinical Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which a surgeon's risk aversion influences their clinical decisions remains unknown. We assessed whether a surgeon's attitude toward risk ("risk aversion") influences their surgical decisions and whether the relationship can be explained by differences in surgeons' perception of treatment risks and benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We presented a series of detailed clinical vignettes to a national sample of surgeons (n = 1,769; 13.4% adjusted response rate) and asked them to complete an instrument that measured how risk averse they are within their clinical practice (scale 6-36; higher number indicates greater risk aversion). For each vignette, participants rated their likelihood of recommending an operation and judged the likelihood of complications or full recovery. We examined whether differences in perceived likelihood of complications versus recovery could explain why risk-averse surgeons may be less likely to recommend an operation. RESULTS: Surgeons varied in their self-reported risk aversion score (median = 25, interquartile range[22,28]). Scores did not differ by level of surgeon experience or gender. Risk-averse surgeons were significantly less likely to recommend an operation for patients with exactly the same condition (65.5% for surgeons in highest quartile of risk aversion versus 62.3% for lowest quartile; P = 0.02). However, after controlling for surgeons' perception of the likelihood of complications versus recovery, there was no longer a significant association between surgeons' risk aversion and the decision to recommend an operation (64.7% versus 64.8%; P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons vary widely in their self-reported risk aversion. Risk-averse surgeons were significantly less likely to recommend an operation, a finding that was explained by a higher perceived probability of post-operative complications than their colleagues.

What is Single-Payer Health Care? A Review of Definitions and Proposals in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Single-payer systems have been proposed as a health care reform alternative in the United States. However, there is no consensus on the definition of single-payer. Most definitions characterize single-payer as one entity that collects funds and pays for health care on behalf on an entire population. Increased flexibility for state health care reform may provide opportunities for state-based single-payer systems to be considered. OBJECTIVE: To explore the concept of single-payer and to describe the contents of single-payer health care proposals. DESIGN: We compared single-payer definitions and proposals. We coded the proposal text for provisions that would change how the health care system functions and could impact health care access, quality, and cost. MAIN MEASURES: The share of proposals that include changes to the financing, pooling, purchasing, and delivery of health care; and possible impact on access, quality, and costs. KEY RESULTS: We identified 25 proposals for national or state single-payer plans from journal and legislative databases. The proposals typically call for wide-ranging reform; nearly all include changes across the financing, pooling, purchasing, and delivery of health care services. Many provisions aiming to improve access, quality, and cost containment are also included, but the proposals vary in how they plan to achieve these improvements. Common provisions are related to comprehensive benefits, patient choice of providers, little or no cost sharing, the role of private insurance, provider guidelines and standards, periodic reviews of the benefits package, electronic medical records and billing, prescription drug formulary, global budgets, administrative cost thresholds, payment reform and studies, and the authority to implement cost-containment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Single-payer systems are heterogeneous. Acknowledgment of what is considered as single-payer and the characteristics that are variable is important for nuanced policy discussions on specific reform proposals.

Impact of a Risk Calculator on Risk Perception and Surgical Decision Making: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether exposure to data from a risk calculator influences surgeons' assessments of risk and in turn, their decisions to operate. BACKGROUND: Little is known about how risk calculators inform clinical judgment and decision-making. METHODS: We asked a national sample of surgeons to assess the risks (probability of serious complications or death) and benefits (recovery) of operative and nonoperative management and to rate their likelihood of recommending an operation (5-point scale) for 4 detailed clinical vignettes wherein the best treatment strategy was uncertain. Surgeons were randomized to the clinical vignettes alone (control group; n = 384) or supplemented by data from a risk calculator (risk calculator group; n = 395). We compared surgeons' judgments and decisions between the groups. RESULTS: Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator judged levels of operative risk that more closely approximated the risk calculator value (RCV) compared with surgeons in the control group [mesenteric ischemia: 43.7% vs 64.6%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 25%); gastrointestinal bleed: 47.7% vs 53.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 38%); small bowel obstruction: 13.6% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 14%); appendicitis: 13.4% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 5%)]. Surgeons exposed to the risk calculator also varied less in their assessment of operative risk (standard deviations: mesenteric ischemia 20.2% vs 23.2%, P = 0.01; gastrointestinal bleed 17.4% vs 24.1%, P < 0.001; small bowel obstruction 10.6% vs 14.9%, P < 0.001; appendicitis 15.2% vs 21.8%, P < 0.001). However, averaged across the 4 vignettes, the 2 groups did not differ in their reported likelihood of recommending an operation (mean 3.7 vs 3.7, P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to risk calculator data leads to less varied and more accurate judgments of operative risk among surgeons, and thus may help inform discussions of treatment options between surgeons and patients. Interestingly, it did not alter their reported likelihood of recommending an operation.

Surgeon Perception of Risk and Benefit in the Decision to Operate.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how surgeons' perceptions of treatment risks and benefits influence their decisions to operate. BACKGROUND: Little is known about what makes one surgeon choose to operate on a patient and another chooses not to operate. METHODS: Using an online study, we presented a national sample of surgeons (N = 767) with four detailed clinical vignettes (mesenteric ischemia, gastrointestinal bleed, bowel obstruction, appendicitis) where the best treatment option was uncertain and asked them to: (1) judge the risks (probability of serious complications) and benefits (probability of recovery) for operative and nonoperative management and (2) decide whether or not they would recommend an operation. RESULTS: Across all clinical vignettes, surgeons varied markedly in both their assessments of the risks and benefits of operative and nonoperative management (narrowest range 4%-100% for all four predictions across vignettes) and in their decisions to operate (49%-85%). Surgeons were less likely to operate as their perceptions of operative risk increased [absolute difference (AD) = -29.6% from 1.0 standard deviation below to 1.0 standard deviation above mean (95% confidence interval, CI: -31.6, -23.8)] and their perceptions of nonoperative benefit increased [AD = -32.6% (95% CI: -32.8,--28.9)]. Surgeons were more likely to operate as their perceptions of operative benefit increased [AD = 18.7% (95% CI: 12.6, 21.5)] and their perceptions of nonoperative risk increased [AD = 32.7% (95% CI: 28.7, 34.0)]. Differences in risk/benefit perceptions explained 39% of the observed variation in decisions to operate across the four vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: Given the same clinical scenarios, surgeons' perceptions of treatment risks and benefits vary and are highly predictive of their decisions to operate.

Using Both Clinical Registry and Administrative Claims Data to Measure Risk-adjusted Surgical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of hybrid quality measures that use both clinical registry and administrative claims data, capitalizing on the strengths of each data source. BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrate substantial disagreement between clinical registry and administrative claims data on the occurrence of postoperative complications. Clinical data have greater validity than claims data for quality measurement but can be burdensome for hospitals to collect. METHODS: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program records were linked to Medicare inpatient claims (2005-2008). National Quality Forum-endorsed risk-adjusted measures of 30-day postoperative complications or death assessed hospital quality for patients undergoing colectomy, lower extremity bypass, or all surgical procedures. Measures use hierarchical multivariable logistic regression to identify statistical outliers. Measures were applied using clinical data, claims data, or a hybrid of both data sources. Kappa statistics assessed agreement on determinations of hospital quality. RESULTS: A total of 111,984 patients participated from 206 hospitals. Agreement on hospital quality between clinical and claims data was poor. Hybrid models using claims data to risk-adjust complications identified by clinical data had moderate agreement with all clinical data models, whereas hybrid models using clinical data to risk-adjust complications identified by claims data had routinely poor agreement with all clinical data models. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of hospital quality differ substantially when using clinical registry versus administrative claims data. A hybrid approach using claims data for risk adjustment and clinical data for complications may be a valid alternative with lower data collection burden. For quality measures focused on postoperative complications to be meaningful, such policies should require, at a minimum, collection of clinical outcomes data.

Variation in Hospital Use of Postacute Care After Surgery and the Association With Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about hospital use of postacute care after surgery and whether it is related to measures of surgical quality. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used data merged between a national surgery registry, Medicare inpatient claims, the Area Resource File, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey (2005-2008). Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, we calculated hospital-level, risk-adjusted rates of postacute care use for both inpatient facilities (IF) and home health care (HHC), and examined the association of these rates with hospital quality measures, including mortality, complications, readmissions, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of 112,620 patients treated at 217 hospitals, 18.6% were discharged to an IF, and 19.9% were discharged with HHC. Even after adjusting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics, hospitals varied widely in their use of both IF (mean, 20.3%; range, 2.7%-39.7%) and HHC (mean, 22.3%; range, 3.1%-57.8%). A hospital's risk-adjusted postoperative mortality rate or complication rate was not significantly associated with its use of postacute care, but higher 30-day readmission rates were associated with higher use of IF (24.1% vs. 21.2%, P=0.03). Hospitals with longer average length of stay used IF less frequently (19.4% vs. 24.4%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals vary widely in their use of postacute care. Although hospital use of postacute care was not associated with risk-adjusted complication or mortality rates, hospitals with high readmission rates and shorter lengths of stay used inpatient postacute care more frequently. To reduce variations in care, better criteria are needed to identify which patients benefit most from these services.

A Quasi-experimental Evaluation of Performance Improvement Teams in the Safety-Net: A Labor-Management Partnership Model for Engaging Frontline Staff.

BACKGROUND: Unit-based teams (UBTs), initially developed by Kaiser Permanente and affiliated unions, are natural work groups of clinicians, managers, and frontline staff who work collaboratively to identify areas for improvement and implement solutions. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the UBT model implemented by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services in partnership with its union to engage frontline staff in improving patient care. DESIGN: We conducted a quasi-experimental study, comparing surveys at baseline and 6 months, among personnel in 10 clinics who received UBT training to personnel in 5 control clinics. We also interviewed staff from 5 clinics that received UBT training and 3 control clinics. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 330 surveys and 38 individual, semi-structured interviews with staff at an outpatient facility in South Los Angeles. INTERVENTIONS: Each UBT leader received an 8-hour training in basic performance improvement methods, and each UBT was assigned a team "coach." MAIN MEASURES: Our outcome measure was 6-month change in the "adaptive reserve" score, the units' self-reported ability to make and sustain change. We analyzed transcripts of the interviews to find common themes regarding the UBT intervention. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 63% (158/252) at baseline and 75% (172/231) at 6 months. There was a significant difference-in-change in adaptive reserve between UBTs and non-UBTs at 6 months (+0.11 vs -0.13; P = .02). Nine of the 10 UBTs reported increases in adaptive reserve and 8 UBTs reported decreased no-show rates or patient length of stay in clinic. Staff overwhelmingly felt the UBTs were a positive intervention because it allowed all levels of staff to have a voice in improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that partnership between management and unions to engage frontline staff in teams may be a useful tool to improve delivery of health care in a safety-net setting.

Comparison between clinical registry and medicare claims data on the classification of hospital quality of surgical care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the classification of hospital statistical outlier status as better or worse performance than expected for postoperative complications using Medicare claims versus clinical registry data. BACKGROUND: Controversy remains as to the most favorable data source for measuring postoperative complications for pay-for-performance and public reporting polices. METHODS: Patient-level records (2005-2008) were linked between the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and Medicare inpatient claims. Hospital statistical outlier status for better or worse performance than expected was assessed using each data source for superficial surgical site infection (SSI), deep/organ-space SSI, any SSI, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism, and myocardial infarction by developing hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models. Kappa statistics and correlation coefficients assessed agreement between the data sources. RESULTS: A total of 192 hospitals with 110,987 surgical patients were included. Agreement on hospital rank for complication rates between Medicare claims and ACS-NSQIP was poor-to-moderate (weighted κ: 0.18-0.48). Of hospitals identified as statistical outliers for better or worse performance by Medicare claims, 26% were also identified as outliers by ACS-NSQIP. Of outliers identified by ACS-NSQIP, 16% were also identified as outliers by Medicare claims. Agreement between the data sources on hospital outlier status classification was uniformly poor (weighted κ: -0.02-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Despite using the same statistical methodology with each data source, classification of hospital outlier status as better or worse performance than expected for postoperative complications differed substantially between ACS-NSQIP and Medicare claims.

Using the Knowledge Base of Health Services Research to Redefine Health Care Systems.

This Perspective discusses 12 key facts derived from 50 years of health services research and argues that this knowledge base can stimulate innovative thinking about how to make health care systems safer, more efficient, more cost effective, and more patient centered, even as they respond to the needs of diverse communities.

A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical complications.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the recording of 30-day postoperative complications between a national clinical registry and Medicare inpatient claims data and to determine whether the addition of outpatient claims data improves concordance with the clinical registry. BACKGROUND: Policymakers are increasingly discussing use of postoperative complication rates for value-based purchasing. There is debate regarding the optimal data source for such measures. METHODS: Patient records (2005-2008) from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) were linked to Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims data sets. We assessed the ability of (1) Medicare inpatient claims and (2) Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims to detect a core set of ACS-NSQIP 30-day postoperative complications: superficial surgical site infection (SSI), deep/organ-space SSI, any SSI (superficial and/or deep/organ-space), urinary tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism (DVT and/or pulmonary embolism), and myocardial infarction. Agreement of patient-level complications by ACS-NSQIP versus Medicare was assessed by κ statistics. RESULTS: A total of 117,752 patients from more than 200 hospitals were studied. The sensitivity of inpatient claims data for detecting ACS-NSQIP complications ranged from 0.27 to 0.78; the percentage of false-positives ranged from 48% to 84%. Addition of outpatient claims data improved sensitivity slightly but also greatly increased the percentage of false-positives. Agreement was routinely poor between clinical and claims data for patient-level complications. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates important differences between ACS-NSQIP and Medicare claims data sets for measuring surgical complications. Poor accuracy potentially makes claims data suboptimal for evaluating surgical complications. These findings have meaningful implications for performance measures currently being considered.

Resuming Elective Surgery during Covid-19: Can Inpatient Hospitals Collaborate with Ambulatory Surgery Centers?

Little is known about the volume and scope of surgical procedures performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and the resources that ASCs may provide to assist local health systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate elective surgical procedures in the inpatient and outpatient ASC setting using currently available administrative claims data. METHODS: We used the 2019 Medicare Point of Service (POS) file to evaluate the geographic distribution of Medicare-certified ASCs in the U.S. To evaluate the volume and scope of elective procedures in the inpatient and outpatient ASC setting, we used the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the 2018 California HHS Open Data Portal ambulatory surgery database. HCUP software programs were used to clinically categorize procedures and determine Elixhauser comorbidity profiles for each patient. RESULTS: Among the 8,540 Medicare certified ASCs in 2019, the majority are freestanding (99.5%) and privately owned (92.9%). In the inpatient setting, 13.3% of elective operating room procedures occur in patients without any Elixhauser comorbidities and require < 2 days of hospital stay. However, the types of elective procedures performed in the inpatient setting are different from the types of procedures routinely performed in ASCs. CONCLUSIONS: Current administrative data lack robust facility, provider, and procedure level information to inform surge capacity protocols for elective surgery. Plastic surgeons are uniquely positioned to work with other specialties and local health systems to guide future development of surge capacity protocols that maintain and improve patient care.

Deficits in Advance Care Planning for Patients With Decompensated Cirrhosis at Liver Transplant Centers.

Importance: The burden of end-of-life care for patients with cirrhosis is increasing in the US, and most of these patients, many of whom are not candidates for liver transplant, die in institutions receiving aggressive care. Advance care planning (ACP) has been associated with improved end-of-life outcomes for patients with other chronic illnesses, but it has not been well-characterized in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Objective: To describe the experience of ACP in patients with decompensated cirrhosis at liver transplant centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this multicenter qualitative study, face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted between July 1, 2017, and May 30, 2018, with clinicians and patients with decompensated cirrhosis at 3 high-volume transplant centers in California. Patient participants were adults and had a diagnosis of cirrhosis, at least 1 portal hypertension-related complication, and current or previous Model for End-Stage Liver Disease with sodium score of 15 or higher. Clinician participants were health care professionals who provided care during the illness trajectory. Main Outcomes and Measures: Experiences with ACP reported by patients and clinicians. Participants were asked about the context, behaviors, thoughts, and decisions concerning elements of ACP, such as prognosis, health care preferences, values and goals, surrogate decision-making, and documentation. Results: The study included 42 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.2 [11.2] years; 28 men [67%]) and 46 clinicians (13 hepatologists [28%], 11 transplant coordinators [24%], 9 hepatobiliary surgeons [20%], 6 social workers [13%], 5 hepatology nurse practitioners [11%], and 2 critical care physicians [4%]). Five themes that represent the experiences of ACP were identified: (1) most patient consideration of values, goals, and preferences occurred outside outpatient visits; (2) optimistic attitudes from transplant teams hindered the discussions about dying; (3) clinicians primarily discussed death as a strategy for encouraging behavioral change; (4) transplant teams avoided discussing nonaggressive treatment options with patients; and (5) surrogate decision makers were unprepared for end-of-life decision-making. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, despite a guarded prognosis, patients with decompensated cirrhosis had inadequate ACP throughout the trajectory of illness until the end of life. This finding may explain excessively aggressive life-sustaining treatment that patients receive at the end of life.

Linking Statistics With Testing Policy to Manage COVID-19 in the Community.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the public health surveillance severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing volume needed, both for acute infection and seroprevalence. METHODS: Required testing volumes were developed using standard statistical methods based on test analytical performance, disease prevalence, desired precision, and population size. RESULTS: Widespread testing for individual health management cannot address surveillance needs. The number of people who must be sampled for public health surveillance and decision making, although not trivial, is potentially in the thousands for any given population or subpopulation, not millions. CONCLUSIONS: While the contributions of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 have received considerable attention, concerns abound regarding the availability of sufficient testing capacity to meet demand. Different testing goals require different numbers of tests and different testing strategies; testing strategies for national or local disease surveillance, including monitoring of prevalence, receive less attention. Our clinical laboratory and diagnostic infrastructure are capable of incorporating required volumes for many local, regional, and national public health surveillance studies into their current and projected testing capacity. However, testing for surveillance requires careful design and randomization to provide meaningful insights.

Association of a Care Bundle for Early Sepsis Management With Mortality Among Patients With Hospital-Onset or Community-Onset Sepsis.

Importance: The Early Management Bundle for Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock (SEP-1) is a quality metric based on a care bundle for early sepsis management. Published evidence on the association of SEP-1 with mortality is mixed and largely excludes cases of hospital-onset sepsis. Objective: To assess the association of the SEP-1 bundle with mortality and organ dysfunction in cohorts with hospital-onset or community-onset sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from 4 University of California hospitals from October 1, 2014, to October 1, 2017. Adult inpatients with a diagnosis consistent with sepsis or disseminated infection and laboratory or vital signs meeting the Sepsis-3 (Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock) criteria were divided into community-onset sepsis and hospital-onset sepsis cohorts based on whether time 0 of sepsis occurred after arrival in the emergency department or an inpatient area. Data were analyzed from April to October 2019. Additional analyses were performed from December 2019 to January 2020. Exposures: Administration of SEP-1 and 4 individual bundle components (serum lactate level testing, blood culture, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment, and intravenous fluid treatment). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was days requiring vasopressor support, measured as vasopressor days. Results: Among the 6404 patient encounters identified (3535 men [55.2%]; mean [SD] age, 64.0 [18.2] years), 2296 patients (35.9%) had hospital-onset sepsis. Among 4108 patients (64.1%) with community-onset sepsis, serum lactate level testing within 3 hours of time 0 was associated with reduced mortality (absolute difference, -7.61%; 95% CI, -14.70% to -0.54%). Blood culture (absolute difference, -1.10 days; 95% CI, -1.85 to -0.34 days) and broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment (absolute difference, -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.22 days) were associated with fewer vasopressor days. Among patients with hospital-onset sepsis, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment was the only bundle component significantly associated with any improved outcome (mortality difference, -5.20%; 95% CI, -9.84% to -0.56%). Care that was adherent to the complete SEP-1 bundle was associated with increased vasopressor days in patients with community-onset sepsis (absolute difference, 0.31 days; 95% CI, 0.11-0.51 days) but was not significantly associated with reduced mortality in either cohort (absolute difference, -0.07%; 95% CI, -3.02% to 2.88% in community-onset; absolute difference, -0.42%; 95% CI, -6.77% to 5.93% in hospital-onset). Conclusions and Relevance: SEP-1-adherent care was not associated with improved outcomes of sepsis. Although multiple components of SEP-1 were associated with reduced mortality or decreased days of vasopressor therapy for patients who presented with sepsis in the emergency department, only broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic treatment was associated with reduced mortality when time 0 occurred in an inpatient unit. Current sepsis quality metrics may need refinement.

Condom use and high-risk sexual acts in adult films: a comparison of heterosexual and homosexual films.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the prevalence of condom use during a variety of sexual acts portrayed in adult films produced for heterosexual and homosexual audiences to assess compliance with state Occupational Health and Safety Administration regulations. METHODS: We analyzed 50 heterosexual and 50 male homosexual films released between August 1, 2005, and July 31, 2006, randomly selected from the distributor of 85% of the heterosexual adult films released each year in the United States. RESULTS: Penile-vaginal intercourse was protected with condoms in 3% of heterosexual scenes. Penile-anal intercourse, common in both heterosexual (42%) and homosexual (80%) scenes, was much less likely to be protected with condoms in heterosexual than in homosexual scenes (10% vs 78%; P < .001). No penile-oral acts were protected with condoms in any of the selected films. CONCLUSIONS: Heterosexual films were much less likely than were homosexual films to portray condom use, raising concerns about transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, especially among performers in heterosexual adult films. In addition, the adult film industry, especially the heterosexual industry, is not adhering to state occupational safety regulations.