Hospital Teaching Status and Patients' Outcomes After Colon Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is increasingly accepted that quality of colon cancer surgery might be secured by combining volume standards with audit implementation. However, debate remains about other structural factors also influencing this quality, such as hospital teaching status. This study evaluates short-term outcomes after colon cancer surgery of patients treated in general, teaching or academic hospitals. METHODS: All patients (n = 23,593) registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit undergoing colon cancer surgery between 2011 and 2014 were included. Patients were divided into groups based on teaching status of their hospital. Main outcome measures were serious complications, failure to rescue (FTR) and 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression models on these outcome measures and with hospital teaching status as primary determinant were used, adjusted for case-mix, year of surgery and hospital volume. RESULTS: Patients treated in teaching and academic hospitals showed higher adjusted serious complication rates, compared to patients treated in general hospitals (odds ratio 1.25 95% CI [1.11-1.39] and OR 1.23 [1.05-1.46]). However, patients treated in teaching hospitals had lower adjusted FTR rates than patients treated in general hospitals (OR 0.63 [0.44-0.89]). However, for all outcomes there was considerable between-hospitals variation within each type of teaching status. CONCLUSION: On average, patients treated in general hospitals had lower serious complication rates, but patients treated in teaching hospitals had more favorable FTR rates. Given the hospital variation within each hospital teaching type, it is possible to deliver excellent care regardless of the hospital teaching type.

Revision of the multiple organ failure score.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The multiple organ failure (MOF) score published by Goris et al. in 1985 was one of the first attempts to quantify severity of organ dysfunction and failure based on expert opinion in surgical intensive care unit patients. Fifteen years later a reassessment of this score is mandatory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Daily MOF scores were documented in patients admitted to the surgical ICUs in Nijmegen (NL) and Cologne (D). Patients with an ICU stay < or = 3 days were excluded. Organ dysfunction (1 point) and organ failure (2 points) were recorded for the following organ systems: lung, heart, kidney, liver, blood, gastrointestinal tract (GI), and central nervous system (CNS). Maximum scores were computed, and logistic regression analysis was used to optimize point weights for each organ system. Predictive power was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: In all, 147 patients, mean age 56 years, were included with a total of 2,354 observation days. Hospital mortality was 30.6%. GI failure was present on only 3.3% of days, without impact on mortality. Valid evaluation of CNS was impossible in most cases due to sedation and ventilation. Reweighting of the score items revealed only marginal improvements in prediction. Mortality consistently increased with increase in number of failed organs. This phenomenon was even more pronounced in older patients, e.g., 55% mortality (age > or = 60) versus 0% (age < 60) with two failing organs. CONCLUSION: Due to problems in definition and assessment (reliability) CNS and GI should not be considered in future assessments of the MOF score. The original point weights in the remaining five organ systems provide a valid and reliable risk stratification, at least in surgical ICU patients.