Hospital-level evaluation of the effect of a national quality improvement programme: time-series analysis of registry data.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A clinical trial in 93 National Health Service hospitals evaluated a quality improvement programme for emergency abdominal surgery, designed to improve mortality by improving the patient care pathway. Large variation was observed in implementation approaches, and the main trial result showed no mortality reduction. Our objective therefore was to evaluate whether trial participation led to care pathway implementation and to study the relationship between care pathway implementation and use of six recommended implementation strategies. METHODS: We performed a hospital-level time-series analysis using data from the Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients trial. Care pathway implementation was defined as achievement of >80% median reliability in 10 measured care processes. Mean monthly process performance was plotted on run charts. Process improvement was defined as an observed run chart signal, using probability-based 'shift' and 'runs' rules. A new median performance level was calculated after an observed signal. RESULTS: Of 93 participating hospitals, 80 provided sufficient data for analysis, generating 800 process measure charts from 20 305 patient admissions over 27 months. No hospital reliably implemented all 10 processes. Overall, only 279 of the 800 processes were improved (3 (2-5) per hospital) and 14/80 hospitals improved more than six processes. Mortality risk documented (57/80 (71%)), lactate measurement (42/80 (53%)) and cardiac output guided fluid therapy (32/80 (40%)) were most frequently improved. Consultant-led decision making (14/80 (18%)), consultant review before surgery (17/80 (21%)) and time to surgery (14/80 (18%)) were least frequently improved. In hospitals using ≥5 implementation strategies, 9/30 (30%) hospitals improved ≥6 care processes compared with 0/11 hospitals using ≤2 implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: Only a small number of hospitals improved more than half of the measured care processes, more often when at least five of six implementation strategies were used. In a longer term project, this understanding may have allowed us to adapt the intervention to be effective in more hospitals.

Major elective joint replacement surgery: socioeconomic variations in surgical risk, postoperative morbidity and length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Patient deprivation is associated with greater need for total hip and knee replacement surgery (THR/TKR) and a higher prevalence of risk factors for surgical complications. Our aim was to examine associations between deprivation and aspects of the inpatient episode for patients undergoing these procedures. METHODS: We analysed socioeconomic variations in preoperative surgical risk, postoperative morbidity and length of stay for 655 patients undergoing elective THR/TKR at a large metropolitan hospital. Surgical risk was assessed using the orthopaedic version of the POSSUM scoring system, postoperative morbidity was assessed using the postoperative morbidity survey, and socioeconomic status was measured using the Index of Multiple Deprivation. We adjusted for age, sex, surgical site and primary vs. revision surgery. RESULTS: We found only a modest, clinically insignificant socioeconomic gradient in preoperative surgical risk and no socioeconomic gradient in postoperative morbidity. There was a strong socioeconomic gradient in length of stay, but only for patients undergoing TKR. This was due to deprived patients being more likely to remain in hospital without morbidity following TKR. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest differential selection of healthier patients for surgery. Hospitals serving deprived communities may have excess, unfunded costs because of the increased length of stay of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.