Quality indicators and outcomes in ambulatory surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Quality indicators are used to monitor the quality and safety of care in ambulatory surgery, a specialty in which major morbidity and mortality remain low. As the demand for safe and cost-effective ambulatory surgical care continues to increase, quality indicators and metrics are becoming critical tools used to provide optimal care for these patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Quality indicators are tools used by both regulatory agencies and surgical centers to improve safety and quality of ambulatory surgical and anesthetic care. These metrics are also being used to develop value-based payment models that focus on efficient, safe, and effective patient care. Patient reported outcome measures are a growing method of collecting data on the satisfaction and postoperative recovery period for ambulatory surgical patients. Monitoring of perioperative efficiency and utilization using quality metrics are important to the financial health of ambulatory surgical centers. SUMMARY: Quality indicators will continue to play a growing role in the monitoring of quality and safety in ambulatory surgery, especially with the trend towards value-based reimbursement models and efficient, cost-effective surgical care. Additionally, quality indicators are useful tools to monitor postoperative patient outcomes and recovery pathways and the efficiency of operating room utilization and scheduling.

Early observations with an ERAS pathway for thyroid and parathyroid surgery: Moving the goalposts forward.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways have become the standard of care in various surgical specialties. In this study, we discuss our initial experience with a staged enhanced recovery after surgery pathway in endocrine surgery and assess the impact of this pathway on select perioperative outcomes and unanticipated admissions. METHODS: We collected information regarding all thyroid/parathyroid surgeries performed by endocrine surgeons at our institution before and after the implementation of the multi-intervention enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. We compared relevant outcomes for all cases 1 year before (n = 479) and 1 year after (n = 166) implementation of the pathway. We also compared outcomes between enhanced recovery after surgery patient groups with varying levels of enhanced recovery after surgery compliance. RESULTS: Enhanced recovery after surgery was associated with a significant decrease in total length of stay (9.2 vs 7.5 hours, P < .0001). Whereas there was no significant decrease in all-cause unanticipated postoperative admissions, there was a decrease in patient-initiated admissions in the Enhanced recovery after surgery group. There was also a significant decrease in mean postoperative morphine milligram equivalents (14.4 vs 16.2 vs 24.8, P = .0015), average daily morphine milligram equivalents (25.6 vs 45.6 vs 53, P < .0001), and average daily pain scores (1.89 vs 2.38 vs 2.74, P = .0045) in the Enhanced recovery after surgery group (particularly with increasing Enhanced recovery after surgery compliance). There were no significant differences in the requirement for postoperative antiemetics or in the post-anesthesia care unit length of stay. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a significant benefit from Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways for thyroidectomies and parathyroidectomies, even with initial data and a staggered roll-out plan. Further directions include a follow-up study once we reach a higher level of institutional compliance with all components of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway and a prospective trial to identify the relative significance of different portions of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery pathway, particularly the superficial cervical plexus block.

Outcomes of Anesthesiologist-Led Care of Patients Following Liver Transplantation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, anesthesiologists were redeployed as transplant ICU intensivists and a postanesthesia care unit was converted to a novel transplant ICU. This study compared the outcomes of patients undergoing liver transplantation under the new model with the prepandemic model. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent liver transplantation at an urban tertiary care center in the United States from December 28, 2015, through May 1, 2020, were identified and grouped according to date of procedure. Peri-COVID cases included transplants that were performed after March 3, 2020. Transplants performed before March 3, 2020, served as pre-COVID controls. RESULTS: A total of 523 liver transplant patients (30 study cases, 493 controls) were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed no significant difference in novel transplant ICU length of stay (N-TLOS) (median LOS 3.8 vs. 4.5 days, log-rank p = 0.60) and hospital length of stay (HLOS) (median LOS 14.2 vs. 14.5 days, log-rank p = 0.66). Cox proportional hazards regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting showed no difference in N-TLOS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.23, p = 0.55) or HLOS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.25, p = 0.52). In addition, there were no significant differences (pre-COVID vs. COVID) in time to extubation (median [interquartile range] 28.7 [20.6-50.7] vs. 26.8 [17.4-40.8] hours, p = 0.35), one-year patient survival (12.0% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.055), one-year graft survival (13.4% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.43), and readmission to the ICU (15.0% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Care provided by non-intensivist anesthesiologists to patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation during a pandemic emergency resulted in outcomes similar to those of care provided by intensivists.

Use of Provider Scorecards to Improve Early Postoperative Recovery-Initial Implementation Study.

ABSTRACT: Intraoperative anesthetic technique directly impacts immediate postoperative recovery, yet there are few opportunities for anesthesiologists to receive feedback and no easily available benchmarks, making it difficult to reflect on one's own practice. This initial implementation study used retrospective data from 5,712 ambulatory surgery cases with healthy adult patients undergoing general anesthesia in 2018 at a large tertiary care academic center. It examines variation in practice among anesthesiologists for eight surgical specialties. Scorecards assessing intraoperative and postoperative opioids, antiemetics, nonopioid analgesics, regional blocks, recovery time, and severe postoperative pain compared with peers were given to anesthesiologists with prefeedback and postfeedback surveys assessing their attitudes toward feedback. Before receiving their scorecard, 71% of providers predicted their performance was average, and 29% predicted their performance was above average. After receiving their scorecards, 42% rated their quality of recovery as worse than expected, 42% rated it as expected, and 16% rated it as better than expected. Thirteen percent disagreed, 44% were neutral, and 44% agreed that this feedback will change their practice. Implementing a scorecard of patient-centered measures that shows where an anesthesiologist stands in the distribution of their peers was well-received, provides a benchmark, and has the potential to change practice.

Anesthesia and Enhanced Recovery After Head and Neck Surgery.

Enhanced recovery protocols have been developed from gastrointestinal, colorectal, and thoracic surgery populations. The basic tenets of head and neck enhanced recovery are: a multidisciplinary team working around the patient, preoperative carbohydrate loading, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization and oral feeding, and frequent reassessment and auditing of protocols to improve patient outcomes. The implementation of enhanced recovery protocols across surgical populations appear to decrease length of stay, reduce cost, and improve patient satisfaction without sacrificing patient quality of care or changing readmission rates. This article examines evidence-based enhanced recovery interventions and tailors them to a major head and neck surgery population.