RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Fast Track Pathways (FTP) directed at reducing length of stay (LOS) and overall costs are being increasingly implemented for emergency surgeries. The purpose of this study is to evaluate implementation of a FTP for Emergency General Surgery (EGS) at an academic medical center (AMC). METHODS: The study included 165 patients at an AMC between 2016 and 2018 who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LI). The FTP group enrolled 89 patients, and 76 controls prior to FTP implementation were evaluated. Time to surgery (TTS), LOS, and post-operative LOS between groups were compared. Direct costs, reimbursements, and patient reported satisfaction (satisfaction 1 = never, 4 = always) were also studied. RESULTS: The sample was 60.6% female, with a median age of 40 years. Case distribution differed slightly (56.2% versus 42.1% LA, 40.4% versus 57.9% LC, FTP versus control), but TTS was similar between groups (11h39min versus 10h02min, P = 0.633). LOS was significantly shorter in the FTP group (15h17min versus 29h09min, P < 0.001), reflected by shorter post-operative LOS (3h11min versus 20h10min, P< 0.001), fewer patients requiring a hospital bed and overnight stay (P < 0.001). Direct costs were significantly lower in the FTP group, reimbursements were similar (P < 0.001 and P = 0.999 respectively), and average patient reported satisfaction was good (3.3/4). CONCLUSION: In an era focused on decreasing cost, optimizing resources, and ensuring patient satisfaction, a FTP can play a significant role in EGS. At an AMC, an EGS FTP significantly decreased LOS, hospital bed utilization while not impacting reimbursement or patient satisfaction.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos , Centros Médicos Académicos , Adulto , Apendicectomía , Apendicitis/cirugía , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Health care quality metrics are crucial to medical institutions, payers, and patients. Obtaining current and reliable quality data is challenging, as publicly reported databases lag by several years. Vizient Clinical Data Base (previously University Health Consortium) is utilized by over 5,000 academic and community medical centers to benchmark health care metrics with results based on predetermined Vizient service lines. We sought to assess the accuracy and reliability of vascular surgery service line metrics, as determined by Vizient. METHODS: Vizient utilizes encounter data submitted by participating medical centers and generates a diverse array of health care metrics ranging from mortality to costs. All inpatient cases captured by Vizient under the vascular surgery service line were identified at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (fiscal year 2016). Each case within the service line was reviewed and categorized as "vascular" or "nonvascular" based on care provided by UMass vascular surgery faculty: vascular = vascular surgery was integral part of care, nonvascular = vascular surgery had minimal or no involvement. Statistical analysis comparing length of stay (LOS), cost, readmission, mortality, and complication rates between vascular and nonvascular cohorts was performed. All inpatient cases discharged by a vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier number were also reviewed and categorized according to Vizient service lines. RESULTS: Vizient's vascular surgery service line identified 696 cases, of which 556 (80%) were vascular and 140 (20%) were nonvascular. When comparing these 2 cohorts, vascular cases had a significantly lower LOS (3.4 vs. 8.7 days; P < 0.0001), cost ($8,535 vs. $16,498; P < 0.0001), and complication rate (6.5% vs. 18%; P < 0.0001) than nonvascular. Mortality was also lower (1.6% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.01), but after risk-adjustment, this difference was not significant. When discharging vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier was used to identify vascular surgery cases, only 69% of these cases were placed within the vascular surgery service line. CONCLUSIONS: Health care quality metrics play an important role for all stakeholders but obtaining accurate and reliable data to implement improvements is challenging. In this single institution experience, inpatient cases that were not under the direction or care of a vascular surgeon resulted in significantly negative impacts on LOS, cost, complication rate, and mortality to the vascular surgery service line, as defined by a national clinical database. Therefore, clinicians must understand the data abstracting and reporting process before implementing effective strategic plans.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Vasculares/normas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Bases de Datos Factuales , Costos de Hospital/normas , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Massachusetts , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud/economía , Readmisión del Paciente/normas , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/mortalidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/terapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Vasculares/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Vasculares/economía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Vasculares/mortalidadRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Clinical documentation is the key determinant of inpatient acuity of illness and payer reimbursement. Every inpatient hospitalization is placed into a diagnosis related group with a relative value based on documented procedures, conditions, comorbidities and complications. The Case Mix Index (CMI) is an average of these diagnosis related groups and directly impacts physician profiling, medical center profiling, reimbursement, and quality reporting. We hypothesize that a focused, physician-led initiative to improve clinical documentation of vascular surgery inpatients results in increased CMI and contribution margin. METHODS: A physician-led coding initiative to educate physicians on the documentation of comorbidities and conditions was initiated with concurrent chart review sessions with coding specialists for 3 months, and then as needed, after the creation of a vascular surgery documentation guide. Clinical documentation and billing for all carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and open infrainguinal procedures (OIPs) performed between January 2013 and July 2016 were stratified into precoding and postcoding initiative groups. Age, duration of stay, direct costs, actual reimbursements, contribution margin (CM), CMI, rate of complication or comorbidity, major complication or comorbidity, severity of illness, and risk of mortality assigned to each discharge were abstracted. Data were compared over time by standardizing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) values for each diagnosis related group and using a CMS base rate reimbursement. RESULTS: Among 458 CEA admissions, postcoding initiative CEA patients (n = 253) had a significantly higher CMI (1.36 vs 1.25; P = .03), CM ($7859 vs $6650; P = .048), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($8955 vs $8258; P = .03) than precoding initiative CEA patients (n = 205). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (43% vs 27%; P < .01). Among 504 OIPs, postcoding initiative patients (n = 227) had a significantly higher CMI (2.23 vs 2.05; P < .01), actual reimbursement ($23,203 vs $19,909; P < .01), CM ($12,165 vs $8840; P < .01), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($14,649 vs $13,496; P < .01) than precoding initiative patients (n = 277). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (61% vs 43%; P < .01). For both CEA and OIPs, there were no differences in age, duration of stay, total direct costs, or primary insurance status between the precoding and postcoding patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate and detailed clinical documentation is required for key stakeholders to characterize the acuity of inpatient admissions and ensure appropriate reimbursement; it is also a key component of risk-adjustment methods for assessing quality of care. A physician-led documentation initiative significantly increased CMI and CM.