The effect of a bundle intervention for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology procedures on same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs.

Cancellations within 24 h of planned elective surgical procedures reduce operating theatre efficiency, add unnecessary costs and negatively affect patient experience. We implemented a bundle intervention that aimed to reduce same-day case cancellations. This consisted of communication tools to improve patient engagement and new screening instruments (automated estimation of ASA physical status and case cancellation risk score plus four screening questions) to identify patients in advance (ideally before case booking) who needed comprehensive pre-operative risk stratification. We studied patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery with the otorhinolaryngology service at a single centre from April 2021 to December 2022. Multivariable logistic regression and interrupted time-series analyses were used to analyse the effects of this intervention on case cancellations within 24 h and costs. We analysed 1548 consecutive scheduled cases. Cancellation within 24 h occurred in 114 of 929 (12.3%) cases pre-intervention and 52 of 619 (8.4%) cases post-intervention. The cancellation rate decreased by 2.7% (95%CI 1.6-3.7%, p < 0.01) during the first month, followed by a monthly decrease of 0.2% (95%CI 0.1-0.4%, p < 0.01). This resulted in an estimated $150,200 (£118,755; €138,370) or 35.3% cost saving (p < 0.01). Median (IQR [range]) number of days between case scheduling and day of surgery decreased from 34 (21-61 [0-288]) pre-intervention to 31 (20-51 [1-250]) post-intervention (p < 0.01). Patient engagement via the electronic health record patient portal or text messaging increased from 75.9% at baseline to 90.8% (p < 0.01) post-intervention. The primary reason for case cancellation was patients' missed appointment on the day of surgery, which decreased from 7.2% pre-intervention to 4.5% post-intervention (p = 0.03). An anaesthetist-driven, clinical informatics-based bundle intervention decreases same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs in patients scheduled for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology surgery.

The cost of keeping patients waiting: retrospective treatment-control study of additional healthcare utilisation for UK patients awaiting elective treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Long waiting times for elective hospital treatments are common in many countries. This study seeks to address a deficit in the literature concerning the effect of long waits on the wider consumption of healthcare resources. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective treatment-control study in a healthcare system in South West England from 15 June 2021 to 15 December 2021. We compared weekly contacts with health services of patients waiting over 18 weeks for treatment ('Treatments') and people not on a waiting list ('Controls'). Controls were matched to Treatments based on age, sex, deprivation and multimorbidity. Treatments were stratified by the clinical specialty of the awaited hospital treatment, with healthcare usage assessed over various healthcare settings. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed whether there was an increase in healthcare utilisation and bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the magnitude of any differences. RESULTS: A total of 44,616 patients were waiting over 18 weeks (the constitutional target in England) for treatment during the study period. There was an increase (p < 0.0004) in healthcare utilisation for all specialties. Patients in the Cardiothoracic Surgery specialty had the largest increase, with 17.9 [interquartile-range: 4.3, 33.8] additional contacts with secondary care and 17.3 [-1.1, 34.1] additional prescriptions per year. CONCLUSION: People waiting for treatment consume higher levels of healthcare than comparable individuals not on a waiting list. These findings are relevant for clinicians and managers in better understanding patient need and reducing harm. Results also highlight the possible 'false economy' in failing to promptly resolve long elective waits.

A retrospective cohort study of intra-corporeal versus extra-corporeal anastomosis for right hemicolectomy with cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare outcomes and cost effectiveness of extra-corporeal anastomosis (ECA) versus intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme data. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Non-cancer diagnoses, emergency procedures or synchronous resection of other organs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and hospitalisation costs were compared. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients (175 ECA, 48 ICA) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts exhibited comparable baseline patient, comorbidity, and tumour characteristics. Distribution of pathological TMN stage, tumour largest dimension, total lymph node harvest and resection margin lengths were statistically similar. ICA was associated with a longer median operative duration compared with ECA (255 min vs. 220 min, P < 0.001). There was a quicker time to gastrointestinal recovery, with a shorter median hospital stay in the ICA group (4.0 versus 5.0 days, P = 0.001). Overall complication rates were comparable. ICA was associated with a higher surgical procedure cost (£6301.57 versus £4998.52, P < 0.001), but lower costs for ward accommodation (£1679.05 versus £2420.15, P = 0.001) and treatment (£3774.55 versus £4895.14, P = 0.009), with a 4.5% reduced overall cost compared with ECA. The ICER of -£3323.58 showed ICA to be more cost effective than ECA, across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: ICA in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is associated with quicker post-operative recovery and may be more cost effective compared with ECA, despite increased operative costs.

Major Metropolitan Area COVID-19 - Positive Patients Undergoing Emergency and Elective Orthopaedic Surgeries: A Case-matched Control Study.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected surgical management in Orthopaedics. This study explores the effect of COVID-19-positive patients on time to surgery from admission, total time spent in preoperative preparation, costs of orthopaedic care, and inpatient days in COVID-19-positive patients. The authors' case-matched study was based on the surgeon, procedure type, and patient demographics. The authors reviewed 58 cases, 23 males and 35 females. The results for the COVID-19-positive and -negative groups are time to admission (362.9; 388.4), time in preparation (127.8; 122.3), inpatient days to surgery (0.2; 0.2), and orthopaedic cost ($81,938; $86,352). With available numbers, no significant difference could be detected for inpatient days until surgery, any associated time to surgery, or orthopaedic costs for operating on COVID-19-positive patients during the pandemic. Perceived increased time and cost of care of COVID-19-positive patients were not proven in this study. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 33(1):014-016, 2024).

Where Is the Value in Ambulatory Versus Inpatient Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of index surgical care setting on perioperative costs and readmission rates across 4 common elective general surgery procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Facility fees seem to be a driving force behind rising US healthcare costs, and inpatient-based fees are significantly higher than those associated with ambulatory services. Little is known about factors influencing where patients undergo elective surgery. METHODS: All-payer claims data from the 2014 New York and Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were used to identify 73,724 individuals undergoing an index hernia repair, primary total or partial thyroidectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparoscopic appendectomy in either the inpatient or ambulatory care setting. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted gamma generalized linear and logistic regression was employed to compare costs and 30-day readmission between inpatient and ambulatory-based surgery, respectively. RESULTS: Approximately 87% of index surgical cases were performed in the ambulatory setting. Adjusted mean index surgical costs were significantly lower among ambulatory versus inpatient cases for all 4 procedures (P < 0.001 for all). Adjusted odds of experiencing a 30-day readmission after thyroidectomy [odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53-0.93; P = 0.03], hernia repair (OR 0.28, 95% CI, 0.20-0.40; P < 0.001), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OR 0.37, 95% CI, 0.32-0.43; P < 0.001) were lower in the ambulatory versus inpatient setting. Readmission rates among ambulatory versus inpatient-based laparoscopic appendectomy were comparable (OR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.31-1.26; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory surgery offers significant costs savings and generally superior 30-day outcomes relative to inpatient-based care for appropriately selected patients across 4 common elective general surgery procedures.

Optimizing Surveillance and Re-intervention Strategy Following Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm has an initial survival advantage over OR, but more frequent complications increase costs and long-term aneurysm-related mortality. Randomized controlled trials of EVAR versus OR have shown EVAR is not cost-effective over a patient's lifetime. However, in the EVAR-1 trial, postoperative surveillance may have been sub-optimal, as the importance of sac growth as a predictor of graft failure was overlooked. METHODS: Real-world data informed a discrete event simulation model of postoperative outcomes following EVAR. Outcomes observed EVAR-1 were compared with those from 5 alternative postoperative surveillance and re-intervention strategies. Key events, quality-adjusted life years and costs were predicted. The impact of using complication and rupture rates from more recent devices, imaging and re-intervention methods was also explored. RESULTS: Compared with observed EVAR-1 outcomes, modeling full adherence to the EVAR-1 scan protocol reduced abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) deaths by 3% and increased elective re-interventions by 44%. European Society re-intervention guidelines provided the most clinically effective strategy, with an 8% reduction in AAA deaths, but a 52% increase in elective re-interventions. The cheapest and most cost-effective strategy used lifetime annual ultrasound in primary care with confirmatory computed tomography if necessary, and reduced AAA-related deaths by 5%. Using contemporary rates for complications and rupture did not alter these conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: All alternative strategies improved clinical benefits compared with the EVAR-1 trial. Further work is needed regarding the cost and accuracy of primary care ultrasound, and the potential impact of these strategies in the comparison with OR.

The Cost of Quarantine: Projecting the Financial Impact of Canceled Elective Surgery on the Nation's Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify the financial impact of elective surgery cancellations in the US during COVID-19 and simulate hospitals' recovery times from a single period of surgery cessation. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 in the US resulted in cessation of elective surgery-a substantial driver of hospital revenue-and placed patients at risk and hospitals under financial stress. We sought to quantify the financial impact of elective surgery cancellations during the pandemic and simulate hospitals' recovery times. METHODS: Elective surgical cases were abstracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2016-2017). Time series were utilized to forecast March-May 2020 revenues and demand. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to calculate the time to clear backlog cases and match expected ongoing demand in the post-COVID period. Subset analyses were performed by hospital region and teaching status. RESULTS: National revenue loss due to major elective surgery cessation was estimated to be $22.3 billion (B). Recovery to market equilibrium was conserved across strata and influenced by pre- and post-COVID capacity utilization. Median recovery time was 12-22 months across all strata. Lower pre-COVID utilization was associated with fewer months to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to mitigate the predicted revenue loss of $22.3B due to major elective surgery cessation will vary with hospital-specific supply-demand equilibrium. If patient demand is slow to return, hospitals should focus on marketing of services; if hospital capacity is constrained, efficient capacity expansion may be beneficial. Finally, rural and urban nonteaching hospitals may face increased financial risk which may exacerbate care disparities.

Quantifying the risk-adjusted hospital costs of postoperative complications after lower extremity bypass in patients with claudication.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing evidence has shown that the risks associated with surgical revascularization for intermittent claudication outweigh the benefits. The aim of our study was to quantify the cost of care associated with perioperative complications after elective lower extremity bypass (LEB) in patients presenting with intermittent claudication. METHODS: All patients undergoing first-time LEB for claudication in the Healthcare Database (2009-2015) were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital postoperative complications, including major adverse limb events (MALE), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), acute kidney injury, and wound complications. The overall crude hospital costs are reported, and a generalized linear model with log link and inverse Gaussian distribution was used to calculate the predicted hospital costs for specific complications. RESULTS: Overall, 7154 patients had undergone elective LEB for claudication during the study period. The median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 59-73 years), 67.5% were male, and 75.3% were white. Two thirds of patients (61.2%) had Medicare insurance, followed by private insurance (26.9%), Medicaid (7.7%), and other insurance (4.2%). In-hospital complications occurred in 8.5% of patients, including acute kidney injury in 3.0%, MALE in 2.8%, wound complications in 2.3%, and MACE in 1.0%. The overall median crude hospital cost was $11,783 (interquartile range, $8911-$15,767) per patient. The incremental increase in cost associated with a postoperative complication was significant, ranging from $6183 (95% confidence interval, $4604-$7762) for MALE to $10,485 (95% confidence interval, $6529-$14,441) for MACE after risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications after elective LEB for claudication are not uncommon and increase the in-hospital costs by 46% to 78% depending on the complication. Surgical revascularization for claudication should be used sparingly in carefully selected patients.

The Impact of Halting Elective Admissions in Anticipation of a Demand Surge Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: In anticipation of a demand surge for hospital beds attributed to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) many US states have mandated that hospitals postpone elective admissions. OBJECTIVES: To estimate excess demand for hospital beds due to COVID-19, the net financial impact of eliminating elective admissions in order to meet demand, and to explore the scenario when demand remains below capacity. RESEARCH DESIGN: An economic simulation to estimate the net financial impact of halting elective admissions, combining epidemiological reports, the US Census, American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and the National Inpatient Sample. Deterministic sensitivity analyses explored the results while varying assumptions for demand and capacity. SUBJECTS: Inputs regarding disease prevalence and inpatient utilization were representative of the US population. Our base case relied on a hospital admission rate reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of 137.6 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people aged 65 years and older (378.8 per 100,000) and 50-64 years (207.4 per 100,000). On average, elective admissions accounted for 20% of total hospital admissions, and the average rate of unoccupied beds across hospitals was 30%. MEASURES: Net financial impact of halting elective admissions. RESULTS: On average, hospitals COVID-19 demand for hospital bed-days fell well short of hospital capacity, resulting in a substantial financial loss. The net financial impact of a 90-day COVID surge on a hospital was only favorable under a narrow circumstance when capacity was filled by a high proportion of COVID-19 cases among hospitals with low rates of elective admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that restricted elective care took on a substantial financial risk, potentially threatening viability. A sustainable public policy should therefore consider support to hospitals that responsibly served their communities through the crisis.

Resource requirements for reintroducing elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 response required the cancellation of all but the most urgent surgical procedures. The number of cancelled surgical procedures owing to Covid-19, and the reintroduction of surgical acivirt, was modelled. METHODS: This was a modelling study using Hospital Episode Statistics data (2014-2019). Surgical procedures were grouped into four urgency classes. Expected numbers of surgical procedures performed between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 were modelled. Procedure deficit was estimated using conservative assumptions and the gradual reintroduction of elective surgery from the 1 June 2020. Costs were calculated using NHS reference costs and are reported as millions or billions of euros. Estimates are reported with 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 4 547 534 (95 per cent c.i. 3 318 195 to 6 250 771) patients with a pooled mean age of 53.5 years were expected to undergo surgery between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021. By 31 May 2020, 749 247 (513 564 to 1 077 448) surgical procedures had been cancelled. Assuming that elective surgery is reintroduced gradually, 2 328 193 (1 483 834 - 3 450 043) patients will be awaiting surgery by 28 February 2021. The cost of delayed procedures is €5.3 (3.1 to 8.0) billion. Safe delivery of surgery during the pandemic will require substantial extra resources costing €526.8 (449.3 to 633.9) million. CONCLUSION: As a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, provision of elective surgery will be delayed and associated with increased healthcare costs.

Rising Cost of Thyroid Surgery in Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to describe the economic trends in adults who underwent elective thyroidectomy. METHODS: We performed a population-based study utilizing the Premier Healthcare Database to examine adult patients who underwent elective thyroidectomy between January 2006 and December 2014. Time was divided into three equal time periods (2006-2008, 2009-2011, and 2012-2014). To examine trend in patient charges, we modeled patient charges using generalized linear regressions adjusting for key covariates with standard errors clustered at the hospital level. RESULTS: Our study cohort consisted of 52,012 adult patients who underwent a thyroid operation. During the study period, the most common procedure changed from a thyroid lobectomy to bilateral thyroidectomy. Over the study period, there was an increase in the proportion of completion thyroidectomies from 1.1% to 1.6% (P < 0.001), malignant diagnoses from 21.7% to 26.8% (P < 0.001), procedures performed at teaching hospitals from 27.7% to 32.9% (P < 0.001), and procedures performed on an outpatient basis from 93.85% to 97.55% (P < 0.001). The annual increase in median patient charge adjusted for inflation was $895 or 4.3% resulting in an increase of 38.8% over 9 y. Higher thyroidectomy charges were associated with male patients, malignant surgical pathology, patients undergoing limited or radical neck dissection, experiencing complications, those with managed health care insurance, and a prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent changes in thyroid surgery practices to decrease the economic burden of hospitals, costs continue to rise 4.3% annually. Additional prospective studies are needed to identify factors associated with this increasing cost.

Initial Outcomes of a Novel Irrigating Wound Protector for Reducing the Risk of Surgical Site Infection in Elective Colectomies.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) rates in elective colorectal surgery remain high due to intraoperative exposure of colonic bacteria at the surgical site. We aimed to evaluate 30-day SSI outcomes of a novel wound retractor that combines barrier protection with continuous wound irrigation in elective colorectal resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort-matched analysis included all patients undergoing elective colorectal resection utilizing the novel irrigating wound protector (IWP) from April 2015 to July 2019. A control cohort of patients who underwent the same procedures with a standard wound protector over the same time period were also identified. Patients from both groups were matched for procedure type, procedure approach, pathology requiring operation, age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes, smoker status, hypertension, presence of disseminated cancer, current steroid or immunosuppressant use, wound classification, and American Society of Anesthesiologist classification. SSI frequency, SSI subtype (superficial, deep, or organ space), hospital length of stay (LOS) and associated procedure were tabulated through 30 postoperative days. Fisher's exact test and number needed to treat (NNT) were used to compare SSI rates and estimate cost between both groups. RESULTS: The IWP group had 41 patients. The control group had 82 patients. Control-matched variables were similar for both groups. 30-day SSI rates were significantly lower in the IWP group (P=0.0298). length of stay was significantly shorter in the IWP group (P=0.0150). The NNT for the IWP to prevent one episode of SSI was 8.2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The novel IWP device shows promise to reducing the risk of SSI in elective colorectal surgery.

Healthcare Resource Utilization in Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Three-Year Cost Evaluation of Truven Health Marketscan Research Databases.

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most commonly performed elective operation in the United States, with over 800,000 cases annually. While clinical outcomes comparing laparoscopic versus open techniques have been well documented, there is little data comparing costs associated with these techniques. This study evaluates the cost of healthcare resources during the 90-d postoperative period following inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. Adult patients with an ICD-9 or CPT code for inguinal hernia repair from 2012 to 2014 were included. Patients with continuous enrollment for 6 mo prior to surgery and 6 mo after surgery were analyzed. Related healthcare service costs (readmission and/or ER visit and/or outpatient visit) were calculated by clinical classification software and generalized linear modeling was used to compare healthcare utilization between groups. RESULTS: 124,582 cases were identified (open = 84,535; lap = 40,047). Index surgery cost was 41% higher in laparoscopic cases. The cost for readmission was close to $25,000 and similar between both groups, but the laparoscopic group were 12% less likely to be readmitted for surgical complications within 90-d when compared to the open group. Cost of bilateral laparoscopic repair is less than that of serial unilateral open repairs. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair carries a higher index surgery cost than open repair. However, open repair has an increased rate of readmission. To maximize value, efforts should be directed at minimizing readmissions and improving identification of bilateral hernias at the time of initial presentation.

Screening and treating pre-operative anaemia and suboptimal iron stores in elective colorectal surgery: a cost effectiveness analysis.

Our study investigated whether pre-operative screening and treatment for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores in a patient blood management clinic is cost effective. We used outcome data from a retrospective cohort study comparing colorectal surgery patients admitted pre- and post-implementation of a pre-operative screening programme. We applied propensity score weighting techniques with multivariable regression models to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Episode-level hospitalisation costs were sourced from the health service clinical costing data system; the economic evaluation was conducted from a Western Australia Health System perspective. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per unit of red cell transfusion avoided. We compared 441 patients screened in the pre-operative anaemia programme with 239 patients not screened; of the patients screened, 180 (40.8%) received intravenous iron for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores. The estimated mean cost of screening and treating pre-operative anaemia was AU$332 (£183; US$231; €204) per screened patient. In the propensity score weighted analysis, screened patients were transfused 52% less red cell units when compared with those not screened (rate ratio = 0.48, 95%CI 0.36-0.63, p < 0.001). The mean difference in total screening, treatment and hospitalisation cost between groups was AU$3776 lower in the group screened (£2080; US$2629; €2325) (95%CI AU$1604-5947, p < 0.001). Screening elective patients pre-operatively for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores reduced the number of red cell units transfused. It also resulted in lower total costs than not screening patients, thus demonstrating cost effectiveness.

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. DISCUSSION: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284.

Increased Healthcare Utilization for Medical Comorbidities Prior to Surgery Improves Postoperative Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of optimization of preoperative comorbidities by nonsurgical clinicians on short-term postoperative outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Preoperative comorbidities can have substantial effects on operative risk and outcomes. The modifiability of these comorbidity-associated surgical risks remains poorly understood. METHODS: We identified patients with a major comorbidity (eg, diabetes, heart failure) undergoing an elective colectomy in a multipayer national administrative database (2010-2014). Patients were included if they could be matched to a preoperative surgical clinic visit within 90 days of an operative intervention by the same surgeon. The explanatory variable of interest ("preoperative optimization") was defined by whether the patient was seen by an appropriate nonsurgical clinician between surgical consultation and subsequent surgery. We assessed the impact of an optimization visit on postoperative complications with use of propensity score matching and multilevel, multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 4531 colectomy patients with a major potentially modifiable comorbidity (propensity weighted and matched effective sample size: 6037). After matching, the group without an optimization visit had a higher rate of complications (34.6% versus 29.7%, P = 0.001). An optimization visit conferred a 31% reduction in the odds of a complication (P < 0.001) in an adjusted analysis. Median preoperative costs increased by $684 (P < 0.001) in the optimized group, and a complication increased total costs of care by $14,724 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We demonstrated an association between use of nonsurgical clinician visits by comorbid patients prior to surgery and a significantly lower rate of complications. These findings support the prospective study of preoperative optimization as a potential mechanism for improving postoperative outcomes.

Are cost advantages from a modern Indian hospital transferable to the United States?

BACKGROUND: Multiple modern Indian hospitals operate at very low cost while meeting US-equivalent quality accreditation standards. Though US hospitals face intensifying pressure to lower their cost, including proposals to extend Medicare payment rates to all admissions, the transferability of Indian hospitals' cost advantages to US peers remains unclear. METHODS: Using time-driven activity-based costing methods, we estimate the average cost of personnel and space for an elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery at two American hospitals and one Indian hospital (NH). All three hospitals are Joint Commission accredited and have reputations for use of modern performance management methods. Our case study applies several analytic steps to distinguish transferable from non-transferable sources of NH's cost savings. RESULTS: After removing non-transferable sources of efficiency, NH's residual cost advantage primarily rests on shifting tasks to less-credentialed and/or less-experienced personnel who are supervised by highly-skilled personnel when perceived risk of complications is low. NH's high annual CABG volume facilitates such supervised work "downshifting." The study is subject to limitations inherent in case studies, does not account for the younger age of NH's patients, or capture savings attributable to NH's negligible frequency of re-admission or post-acute care facility placement. CONCLUSIONS: Most transferable bases for a modern Indian hospital's cost advantage would require more flexible American states' hospital and health professional licensing regulations, greater family participation in inpatient care, and stronger support by hospital executives and clinicians for substantially lowering the cost of care via regionalization of complex surgeries and weekend use of costly operating rooms.

COVID-19 financial resources for physicians.

The appropriate focus in managing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been addressing access and delivery of care to the population affected by the outbreak. All sectors of the U.S. economy have been significantly affected, including physicians. Physician groups of all specialties and sizes have experienced the financial effects of the pandemic. Hospitals have received billions of dollars to support and enable them to manage emergencies and cover the costs of the disruption. However, many vascular surgeons are under great financial pressure because of the postponement of all nonemergency procedures. The federal government has announced a myriad of programs in the form of grants and loans to reimburse physicians for some of their expenses and loss of revenue. It is more than likely that unless the public health emergency subsides significantly, many practices will experience dire consequences without additional financial assistance. We have attempted to provide a concise listing of such programs and resources available to assist vascular surgeons who are small businesses in accessing these opportunities.

Socioeconomic Status and Days Alive and Out of Hospital after Major Elective Noncardiac Surgery: A Population-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status is an important but understudied determinant of preoperative health status and postoperative outcomes. Previous work has focused on the impact of socioeconomic status on mortality, hospital stay, or complications. However, individuals with low socioeconomic status are also likely to have fewer supports to facilitate them remaining at home after hospital discharge. Thus, such patients may be less likely to return home over the short and intermediate term after major surgery. The newly validated outcome, days alive and out of hospital, may be highly suited to evaluating the impact of socioeconomic status on this postdischarge period. The study aimed to determine the association of socioeconomic status with short and intermediate term postoperative recovery as measured by days alive and out of hospital. METHODS: The authors evaluated data from 724,459 adult patients who had one of 13 elective major noncardiac surgical procedures between 2006 and 2017. Socioeconomic status was measured by median neighborhood household income (categorized into quintiles). Primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital at 30 days, while secondary outcomes included days alive and out of hospital at 90 and 180 days, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Compared to the highest income quintile, individuals in the lowest quintile had higher unadjusted risks of postoperative complications (6,049 of 121,099 [5%] vs. 6,216 of 160,495 [3.9%]) and 30-day mortality (731 of 121,099 [0.6%] vs. 701 of 160,495 [0.4%]) and longer mean postoperative length of stay (4.9 vs. 4.4 days). From lowest to highest income quintile, the mean adjusted days alive and out of hospital at 30 days after surgery varied between 24.5 to 24.9 days. CONCLUSIONS: Low socioeconomic status is associated with fewer days alive and out of hospital after surgery. Further research is needed to examine the underlying mechanisms and develop posthospital interventions to improve postoperative recovery in patients with fewer socioeconomic resources.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Preoperative Screening Strategies for Obstructive Sleep Apnea among Patients Undergoing Elective Inpatient Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is underdiagnosed in surgical patients. The cost-effectiveness of obstructive sleep apnea screening is unknown. This study's objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preoperative obstructive sleep apnea screening (1) perioperatively and (2) including patients' remaining lifespans. METHODS: An individual-level Markov model was constructed to simulate the perioperative period and lifespan of patients undergoing inpatient elective surgery. Costs (2016 Canadian dollars) were calculated from the hospital perspective in a single-payer health system. Remaining model parameters were derived from a structured literature search. Candidate strategies included: (1) no screening; (2) STOP-Bang questionnaire alone; (3) STOP-Bang followed by polysomnography (STOP-Bang + polysomnography); and (4) STOP-Bang followed by portable monitor (STOP-Bang + portable monitor). Screen-positive patients (based on STOP-Bang cutoff of at least 3) received postoperative treatment modifications and expedited definitive testing. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life month in the perioperative analyses and quality-adjusted life years in the lifetime analyses. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: In perioperative and lifetime analyses, no screening was least costly and least effective. STOP-Bang + polysomnography was the most effective strategy and was more cost-effective than both STOP-Bang + portable monitor and STOP-Bang alone in both analyses. In perioperative analyses, STOP-Bang + polysomnography was not cost-effective compared to no screening at the $4,167/quality-adjusted life month threshold (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $52,888/quality-adjusted life month). No screening was favored in more than 90% of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In contrast, in lifetime analyses, STOP-Bang + polysomnography was favored compared to no screening at the $50,000/quality-adjusted life year threshold (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $2,044/quality-adjusted life year). STOP-Bang + polysomnography was favored in most iterations at thresholds above $2,000/quality-adjusted life year in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of preoperative obstructive sleep apnea screening differs depending on time horizon. Preoperative screening with STOP-Bang followed by immediate confirmatory testing with polysomnography is cost-effective on the lifetime horizon but not the perioperative horizon. The integration of preoperative screening based on STOP-Bang and polysomnography is a cost-effective means of mitigating the long-term disease burden of obstructive sleep apnea.