Textbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Quality assurance is acknowledged as a crucial factor in the assessment of oncological surgical care. The aim of this study was to develop a composite measure of multiple outcome parameters defined as 'textbook outcome', to assess quality of care for patients undergoing oesophagogastric cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients with oesophagogastric cancer, operated on with the intent of curative resection between 2011 and 2014, were identified from a national database (Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit). Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. Hospital variation in textbook outcome was analysed after adjustment for case-mix factors. RESULTS: In total, 2748 patients with oesophageal cancer and 1772 with gastric cancer were included in this study. A textbook outcome was achieved in 29·7 per cent of patients with oesophageal cancer and 32·1 per cent of those with gastric cancer. Adjusted textbook outcome rates varied from 8·5 to 52·4 per cent between hospitals. The outcome parameter 'at least 15 lymph nodes examined' had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome both for patients with oesophageal cancer and for those with gastric cancer. CONCLUSION: Most patients did not achieve a textbook outcome and there was wide variation between hospitals.

Hospital variation in failure to rescue after colorectal cancer surgery: results of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality is frequently used in hospital comparisons as marker for quality of care. Differences in mortality between hospitals may be explained by varying complication rates. A possible modifying factor may be the ability to let patients with a serious complication survive, referred to as failure to rescue (FTR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate how hospital performance on postoperative mortality is related to severe complications or to FTR and to explore the value of FTR in quality improvement programs. METHODS: All patients operated for colorectal cancer from 2009 to 2011, registered in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit, were included. Logistic regression models were used to obtain adjusted mortality, complication, and FTR rates. Hospitals were grouped into 5 quintiles according to adjusted mortality. Outcomes were compared between quintiles. RESULTS: A total of 24,667 patients were included. Severe complications ranged from 19 % in the lowest to 25 % in the highest mortality quintile (odds ratio 1.5, 95 % confidence interval 1.37-1.67). Risk-adjusted FTR rates showed a marked difference between the quintiles, ranging from 9 % to 26 % (odds ratio 3.0, 95 % confidence interval 2.29-3.98). There was significant variability in FTR rates. Seven hospitals had significantly lower FTR rates than average. CONCLUSIONS: High-mortality hospitals had slightly higher rates of severe complications than low-mortality hospitals. However, FTR was three times higher in high-mortality hospitals than in low-mortality hospitals. In quality improvement projects, feedback to hospitals of FTR rates, along with complication rates, may illustrate shortcomings (prevention or management of complications) per hospital, which may be an important step in reducing mortality.

Nonelective colon cancer resections in elderly patients: results from the dutch surgical colorectal audit.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess which factors contribute to postoperative mortality, especially in elderly patients who undergo emergency colon cancer resections, using a nationwide population-based database. METHODS: 6,161 patients (1,172 nonelective) who underwent a colon cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands were included. Risk factors for postoperative mortality were investigated using a multivariate logistic regression model for different age groups, elective and nonelective patients separately. RESULTS: For both elective and nonelective patients, mortality risk increased with increasing age. For nonelective elderly patients (80+ years), each additional risk factor increased the mortality risk. For a nonelective patient of 80+ years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of III+ and a left hemicolectomy or extended resection, postoperative mortality rate was 41% compared with 7% in patients without additional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: For elderly patients with two or more additional risk factors, a nonelective resection should be considered a high-risk procedure with a mortality risk of up to 41%. The results of this study could be used to adequately inform patient and family and should have consequences for composing an operative team.

Focusing on desired outcomes of care after colon cancer resections; hospital variations in 'textbook outcome'.

AIMS: We propose a summarizing measure for outcome indicators, representing the proportion of patients for whom all desired short-term outcomes of care (a 'textbook outcome') is realized. The aim of this study was to investigate hospital variation in the proportion of patients with a 'textbook outcome' after colon cancer resections in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients who underwent a colon cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands were included in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. A textbook outcome was defined as hospital survival, radical resection, no reintervention, no ostomy, no adverse outcome and a hospital stay < 14 days. We calculated the number of hospitals with a significantly higher (positive outlier) or lower (negative outlier) Observed/Expected (O/E) textbook outcome than average. As quality measures may be more discriminative in a low-risk population, analyses were repeated for low-risk patients only. RESULTS: A total of 5582 patients, treated in 82 hospitals were included. Average textbook outcome was 49% (range 26-71%). Eight hospitals were identified as negative outliers. In these hospitals a 'textbook outcome' was realized in 35% vs. 52% in average hospitals (p < 0.01). In a sub-analysis for low-risk patients, only one additional negative outlier was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The textbook outcome, representing the proportion of patients with a perfect hospitalization, gives a simple comprehensive summary of hospital performance, while preventing indicator driven practice. Therewith the 'textbook outcome' is meaningful for patients, providers, insurance companies and healthcare inspectorate.

The Dutch surgical colorectal audit.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009, the nationwide Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit (DSCA) was initiated by the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands (ASN) to monitor, evaluate and improve colorectal cancer care. The DSCA is currently widely used as a blueprint for the initiation of other audits, coordinated by the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA). This article illustrates key elements of the DSCA and results of three years of auditing. METHODS: Key elements include: a leading role of the professional association with integration of the audit in the national quality assurance policy; web-based registration by medical specialists; weekly updated online feedback to participants; annual external data verification with other data sources; improvement projects. RESULTS: In two years, all Dutch hospitals participated in the audit. Case-ascertainment was 92% in 2010 and 95% in 2011. External data verification by comparison with the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) showed high concordance of data items. Within three years, guideline compliance for diagnostics, preoperative multidisciplinary meetings and standardised reporting increased; complication-, re-intervention and postoperative mortality rates decreased significantly. DISCUSSION: The success of the DSCA is the result of effective surgical collaboration. The leading role of the ASN in conducting the audit resulted in full participation of all colorectal surgeons in the Netherlands. By integrating the audit into the ASNs' quality assurance policy, it could be used to set national quality standards. Future challenges include reduction of administrative burden; expansion to a multidisciplinary registration; and addition of financial information and patient reported outcomes to the audit data.

Meta-analysis of the risk for anastomotic leakage, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality.

BACKGROUND: Availability of anastomotic leakage rates and mortality rates following anastomotic leakage is essential when informing patients with rectal cancer preoperatively. We performed a meta-analysis of studies describing anastomotic leakage and the subsequent postoperative mortality in relation to the overall postoperative mortality after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic search was performed of the published literature. Data on the definition and incidence rate of AL, postoperative mortality caused by AL, and overall postoperative mortality were extracted. Data were pooled and a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with 10,343 patients in total were analyzed. Meta-analysis of the data showed an average AL rate of 9%, postoperative mortality caused by leakage of 0.7% and overall postoperative mortality of 2%. The studies showed variation in incidence, definition and measurement of all outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found a considerable overall AL rate and a large contribution of AL to the overall postoperative mortality. The variability of definitions and measurement of AL, postoperative mortality caused by leakage and overall postoperative mortality may hinder providing reliable risk information. Large-scale audit programs may provide accurate and valid risk information which can be used for preoperative decision making.

Use of different comorbidity scores for risk-adjustment in the evaluation of quality of colorectal cancer surgery: does it matter?

AIMS: Comorbidity affects outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. However, it's importance in risk adjustment is unclear and different measures are being used. This study aims to assess its impact on post-operative outcomes. METHODS: All 2204 patients who were operated on for stage I-III colorectal cancer in the Midwestern region of the Netherlands between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008 were analyzed. A multivariate two-step enter-model was used to evaluate the effect of the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status classification (ASA) score, the sum of diseased organ systems (SDOS), the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and a combination of specific comorbidities on 30-day mortality, surgical complications and a prolonged length of stay (LOS). For each retrieved model, and for a model without comorbidity, a ROC curve was made. RESULTS: High ASA score, SDOS, CCI, pulmonary disease and previous malignancy were all strongly associated with 30-day mortality and a prolonged LOS. High ASA score and gastro-intestinal comorbidity were risk factors for surgical complications. Predictive values for all comorbidity measures were similar with regard to all adverse post-operative outcomes. Omitting comorbidity only had a marginal effect on the predictive value of the model. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the measure used, comorbidity is an independent risk factor for adverse outcome after colorectal surgery. However, the importance of comorbidity in risk-adjustment models is limited. Probably the work and costs of data collection for auditing can be reduced, without compromising risk-adjustment.

Combining process indicators to evaluate quality of care for surgical patients with colorectal cancer: are scores consistent with short-term outcome?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if composite measures based on process indicators are consistent with short-term outcome indicators in surgical colorectal cancer care. DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of consistency between composite measures based on process indicators and outcome indicators for 85 Dutch hospitals. SETTING: The Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 4732 elective patients with colon carcinoma and 2239 with rectum carcinoma treated in 85 hospitals were included in the analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All available process indicators were aggregated into five different composite measures. The association of the different composite measures with risk-adjusted postoperative mortality and morbidity was analysed at the patient and hospital level. RESULTS: At the patient level, only one of the composite measures was negatively associated with morbidity for rectum carcinoma. At the hospital level, a strong negative association was found between composite measures and hospital mortality and morbidity rates for rectum carcinoma (p<0.05), and hospital morbidity rates for colon carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: For individual patients, a high score on the composite measures based on process indicators is not associated with better short-term outcome. However, at the hospital level, a good score on the composite measures based on process indicators was consistent with more favourable risk-adjusted short-term outcome rates.

Variation in case-mix between hospitals treating colorectal cancer patients in the Netherlands.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine how expected mortality based on case-mix varies between colorectal cancer patients treated in non-teaching, teaching and university hospitals, or high, intermediate and low-volume hospitals in the Netherlands. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the database of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit 2010. Factors predicting mortality after colon and rectum carcinoma resections were identified using logistic regression models. Using these models, expected mortality was calculated for each patient. RESULTS: 8580 patients treated in 90 hospitals were included in the analysis. For colon carcinoma, hospitals' expected mortality ranged from 1.5 to 14%. Average expected mortality was lower in patients treated in high-volume hospitals than in low-volume hospitals (5.0 vs. 4.3%, p < 0.05). For rectum carcinoma, hospitals expected mortality varied from 0.5 to 7.5%. Average expected mortality was higher in patients treated in non-teaching and teaching hospitals than in university hospitals (2.7 and 2.3 vs. 1.3%, p < 0.01). Furthermore, rectum carcinoma patients treated in high-volume hospitals had a higher expected mortality than patients treated in low-volume hospitals (2.6 vs. 2.2% p < 0.05). We found no differences in risk-adjusted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients are not evenly distributed between hospitals. Using the expected mortality as an integrated measure for case-mix can help to gain insight in where high-risk patients go. The large variation in expected mortality between individual hospitals, hospital types and volume groups underlines the need for risk-adjustment when comparing hospital performances.