Think Twice: De-implementation of Laboratory Testing After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Clinically unindicated laboratory testing contributes to low-value care. Most postoperative day 1 laboratory tests after colorectal surgery are normal. However, no published interventions have shown that reducing overall postoperative laboratory testing is safe. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of reducing postoperative laboratory testing after colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This is a quality improvement study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at an academic center with an enhanced recovery after surgery program that included 5 daily laboratory tests until discharge. PATIENTS: All adults undergoing colorectal or small-bowel surgery formed intervention and nonintervention cohorts based on surgeons who chose to opt into the study. Preimplementation (November 2019-October 2021), there were 545 intervention and 577 nonintervention patients. Postimplementation (November 2021-March 2023), there were 448 intervention and 437 nonintervention patients. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention included 3 postoperative day 1 laboratory tests and subsequent clinically indicated laboratory tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included laboratory tests and days free of laboratory work. RESULTS: Postintervention, the intervention group had a 33% reduction in laboratory tests per hospital stay, a 26% reduction in laboratory tests per day, and a 49% increase in laboratory test-free days. There was no difference in length of stay (4 vs 4; p = 0.79) or readmissions (14.9% vs 12.9%; p = 0.39). The nonintervention group had no significant changes in laboratory work or laboratory test-free days, with no differences in length of stay (4 vs 4; p = 0.49) or readmissions (11.1% vs 11.0%; p = 0.96). LIMITATIONS: Demographics and complication rates were not reported. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention targeting reflexive laboratory testing after colorectal surgery resulted in safe, significant, sustained reductions in postoperative laboratory work, with substantial cost savings. These findings prompted a change in the laboratory order set to an opt-out system, and laboratory work reduction approaches have been implemented within other surgical divisions. Continuation and spread of these efforts are instrumental for prioritization of high-value surgical care. See Video Abstract . PINSELO DOS VECES ELIMINACIN DE LAS PRUEBAS DE LABORATORIO DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA COLORRECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Las pruebas de laboratorio clínicamente no indicadas contribuyen a una atención de bajo valor. La mayoría de los análisis de laboratorio del primer día post operatorios de una cirugía colorrectal son normales. Sin embargo, ninguna intervención publicada ha demostrado que reducir las pruebas de laboratorio post operatorias generales sea seguro.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue investigar el impacto de reducir las pruebas de laboratorio pos toperatorias después de la cirugía colorrectal.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de mejora de la calidad.AJUSTES:El estudio se llevó a cabo en un centro académico con un programa mejorado de recuperación después de la cirugía que incluye 5 laboratorios diarios hasta el alta.PACIENTES:Todos los adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal o de intestino delgado formaron cohortes de intervención y no intervención basadas en los cirujanos que optaron por participar en el estudio. Antes de la implementación (noviembre de 2019 - octubre de 2021) había 545 pacientes con intervención y 577 sin intervención. Después de la implementación (noviembre de 2021 - marzo de 2023) hubo 448 pacientes con intervención y 437 sin intervención.INTERVENCIONES:La intervención incluyó 3 laboratorios post operatorios del primer día y laboratorios posteriores clínicamente indicados.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las medidas de resultado incluyeron pruebas de laboratorio y días sin laboratorio.RESULTADOS:Después de la intervención, el grupo de intervención tuvo una reducción del 33 % en laboratorios por estancia hospitalaria, una reducción del 26 % en laboratorios por día y un aumento del 49 % en los días sin laboratorio. No hubo diferencias en la duración de la estancia hospitalaria (4 frente a 4; p = 0,79) ni en los reingresos (14,9% frente a 12,9%; p = 0,39). El grupo de no intervención no tuvo cambios significativos en el trabajo de laboratorio o en los días sin laboratorio, sin diferencias en la duración de la estadía (4 versus 4; p = 0,49) o reingresos (11,1% versus 11,0%; p = 0,96).LIMITACIONES:No se informaron datos demográficos ni tasa de complicaciones.CONCLUSIONES:Una intervención dirigida a pruebas de laboratorio reflexivas después de la cirugía colorrectal resultó en reducciones seguras, significativas y sostenidas en el trabajo de laboratorio post operatorio, con ahorros sustanciales de costos. Estos hallazgos provocaron un cambio en el orden del laboratorio establecido hacia un sistema de exclusión voluntaria, y se han implementado enfoques de reducción del trabajo de laboratorio en otras divisiones quirúrgicas. La continuación y difusión de estos esfuerzos son fundamentales para priorizar la atención quirúrgica de alto valor. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Sigmoid volvulus: Evaluating identification strategies and contemporary multicenter outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is limited epidemiologic data on sigmoid volvulus (SV) from non-endemic regions. Therefore, we performed a multicenter study to report contemporary outcomes and appraise literature-based methods that pair diagnostic and procedural codes to identify SV. METHOD: Using an automated search for patients with 'volvulus' in our system from 2011 to 2021, we reviewed electronic charts to clarify the diagnosis, automatically replicate three strategies to identify SV, and retrieved 6-month outcomes. RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 109 had SV. Literature-based strategies poorly identified SV. At the index admission, patients underwent endoscopic reduction alone (33%), emergent (16.5%), semi-elective (34%), or elective (16.5%) surgery. Endoscopic reduction alone had high recurrence rates and delayed surgery was associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Literature-based strategies to identify SV suffer from misclassification bias which affects patient counseling. In this large series, one-third of patients do not undergo during their index admission despite improved outcomes with earlier surgery.

Applying VitalTalkTM Techniques to Best Case/Worst Case Training to Increase Scalability and Improve Surgeon Confidence in Shared Decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) is a communication tool designed to promote shared decision-making for high-risk procedures near the end of life. This study aimed to increase scalability of a BC/WC training program and measure its impact on surgeon confidence in and perceived importance of the methodology. DESIGN: A prospective cohort pre-post study; December 2018 to January 2019. SETTING: Multi-center tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight resident surgeons from general surgery and otolaryngology. RESULTS: Learners were 24 to 37 years old with 52% in post graduate year 1 to 2. Although learners encountered high-stakes communication (HSC) frequently (3.6 [0.7] on 5-point Likert scale), most reported no HSC training in medical school (74.5%) or residency (87.5%). BC/WC training was accomplished with an instructor to learner ratio of 1-to-5.3. After training, learner confidence improved on all measured communication skills on a 5-point scale (e.g., exploring patient's values increased from 3.6 [0.8] to 4.1 [0.6], p = <0.0001); average within-person improvement was 0.72 (0.6) points across all skills. Perceived importance improved across all skills (e.g., basing a recommendation on patient's values increased from 4.4 [0.8] to 4.8 [0.5], p = 0.0009); average within-person improvement was 0.46 (0.5) points across all skills. Learners reported this training would likely help them in future interactions (4.4 [0.73] on 5-point scale) and 95.2% recommended it be offered to resident physicians in other residency programs and to attending surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Formal training in BC/WC increases learners' perception of both the importance of HSC skills and their confidence in exercising those skills in clinical practice. VitalTalkTM methodology permitted scaling training to 5.3 learners per instructor and was highly recommended for other surgeons. Ongoing training, such as this, may support more patient-centered decision-making and care.

Barriers to Goal-concordant Care for Older Patients With Acute Surgical Illness: Communication Patterns Extrinsic to Decision Aids.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize patterns of communication extrinsic to a decision aid that may impede goal-concordant care. BACKGROUND: Decision aids are designed to facilitate difficult clinical decisions by providing better treatment information. However, these interventions may not be sufficient to effectively reveal patient values and promote preference-aligned decisions for seriously ill, older adults. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 31 decision-making conversations between surgeons and frail, older inpatients with acute surgical problems at a single tertiary care hospital. Conversations occurred before and after surgeons were trained to use a decision aid. We used directed qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns within 3 communication elements: disclosure of prognosis, elicitation of patient preferences, and integration of preferences into a treatment recommendation. RESULTS: First, surgeons missed an opportunity to break bad news. By focusing on the acute surgical problem and need to make a treatment decision, surgeons failed to expose the life-limiting nature of the patient's illness. Second, surgeons asked patients to express preference for a specific treatment without gaining knowledge about the patient's priorities or exploring how patients might value specific health states or disabilities. Third, many surgeons struggled to integrate patients' goals and values to make a treatment recommendation. Instead, they presented options and noted, "It's your decision." CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid alone may be insufficient to facilitate a decision that is truly shared. Attention to elements beyond provision of treatment information has the potential to improve communication and promote goal-concordant care for seriously ill older patients.

A Framework to Improve Surgeon Communication in High-Stakes Surgical Decisions: Best Case/Worst Case.

Importance: Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging. Objective: To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Interventions: A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives. Results: The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient's problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation. Conclusions and Relevance: Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

"Best Case/Worst Case": Training Surgeons to Use a Novel Communication Tool for High-Risk Acute Surgical Problems.

CONTEXT: Older adults often have surgery in the months preceding death, which can initiate postoperative treatments inconsistent with end-of-life values. "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool designed to promote goal-concordant care during discussions about high-risk surgery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate a structured training program designed to teach surgeons how to use BC/WC. METHODS: Twenty-five surgeons from one tertiary care hospital completed a two-hour training session followed by individual coaching. We audio-recorded surgeons using BC/WC with standardized patients and 20 hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients and their families participated in an open-ended interview 30 to 120 days after enrollment. We used a checklist of 11 BC/WC elements to measure tool fidelity and surgeons completed the Practitioner Opinion Survey to measure acceptability of the tool. We used qualitative analysis to evaluate variability in tool content and to characterize patient and family perceptions of the tool. RESULTS: Surgeons completed a median of 10 of 11 BC/WC elements with both standardized and hospitalized patients (range 5-11). We found moderate variability in presentation of treatment options and description of outcomes. Three months after training, 79% of surgeons reported BC/WC is better than their usual approach and 71% endorsed active use of BC/WC in clinical practice. Patients and families found that BC/WC established expectations, provided clarity, and facilitated deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons can learn to use BC/WC with older patients considering acute high-risk surgical interventions. Surgeons, patients, and family members endorse BC/WC as a strategy to support complex decision making.

Patient-reported Limitations to Surgical Buy-in: A Qualitative Study of Patients Facing High-risk Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize how patients buy-in to treatments beyond the operating room and what limits they would place on additional life-supporting treatments. BACKGROUND: During a high-risk operation, surgeons generally assume that patients buy-in to life-supporting interventions that might be necessary postoperatively. How patients understand this agreement and their willingness to participate in additional treatment is unknown. METHODS: We purposively sampled surgeons in Toronto, Ontario, Boston, Massachusetts, and Madison, Wisconsin, who are good communicators and routinely perform high-risk operations. We audio-recorded their conversations with patients considering high-risk surgery. For patients who were then scheduled for surgery, we performed open-ended preoperative and postoperative interviews. We used directed qualitative content analysis to analyze the interviews and surgeon visits, specifically evaluating the content about the use of postoperative life support. RESULTS: We recorded 43 patients' conversations with surgeons, 34 preoperative, and 27 postoperative interviews. Patients expressed trust in their surgeon to make decisions about additional treatments if a serious complication occurred, yet expressed a preference for significant treatment limitations that were not discussed with their surgeon preoperatively. Patients valued the existence or creation of an advance directive preoperatively, but they did not discuss this directive with their surgeon. Instead they assumed it would be effective if needed and that family members knew their wishes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients implicitly trust their surgeons to treat postoperative complications as they arise. Although patients may buy-in to some additional postoperative interventions, they hold a broad range of preferences for treatment limitations that were not discussed with the surgeon preoperatively.

Engaging Patients, Health Care Professionals, and Community Members to Improve Preoperative Decision Making for Older Adults Facing High-Risk Surgery.

Importance: Older patients are at greater risk for postoperative complications, yet they are less likely than younger patients to ask questions about surgery. Objective: To design an intervention to improve preoperative decision making and manage postoperative expectations. Design, Setting, and Participants: A Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) was created to help identify preoperative decisional needs. The PFAC included 4 men and women who had previous experience with high-risk surgery as older patients or their family members; the PFAC met monthly at a local library from May 2014 to April 2015 to examine findings from a prior qualitative study and to integrate themes with PFAC members' experiences. Patient observations included 91 recorded conversations between patients and surgeons and 61 patient interviews before and after surgery. The PFAC members and other stakeholders evaluated 118 publicly available questions and selected 12 corresponding to identified needs to generate a question prompt list (QPL). Three focus groups, including 31 community members from diverse backgrounds, were conducted at community centers in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to refine the QPL. A clinical pilot with 42 patients considering surgery was conducted in one outpatient surgical clinic in Madison. Main Outcomes and Measures: Generation of a QPL to address patients' preoperative informational and decisional needs. Results: Through exploration of qualitative data, the PFAC noted 3 critical problems. Patients and family members believed surgery had to be done, were surprised that postoperative recovery was difficult, and lacked knowledge about the perioperative use of advance directives. The PFAC identified a need for more information and decisional support during preoperative conversations that included clarification of treatment options, setting postoperative expectations, and advance care planning. The following 3 question prompt categories arose: "Should I have surgery?" "What should I expect if everything goes well?" and "What happens if things go wrong?" The final list included 11 questions within these domains, was understandable in English and Spanish, and was acceptable to patients in the clinic. Conclusions and Relevance: Through direct engagement of stakeholders, a QPL was created to address core decisional and informational needs of surgical patients. Future testing will evaluate whether this list can be used to improve patient engagement and reduce postoperative regret and conflict about postoperative treatments.

Trajectories and Prognosis of Older Patients Who Have Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation After High-Risk Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical patients often receive routine postoperative mechanical ventilation with excellent outcomes. However, older patients who receive prolonged mechanical ventilation may have a significantly different long-term trajectory not fully captured in 30-day postoperative metrics. The objective of this study is to describe patterns of mortality and hospitalization for Medicare beneficiaries 66 years old and older who have major surgery with and without prolonged mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Hospitals throughout the United States. PATIENTS: Five percent random national sample of elderly Medicare beneficiaries (age ≥ 66 yr) who underwent 1 of 227 operations previously defined as high risk during an inpatient stay at an acute care hospital between January 1, 2005, and November 30, 2009. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 117,917 episodes for older patients who had high-risk surgery; 4% received prolonged mechanical ventilation during the hospitalization. Patients who received prolonged mechanical ventilation had higher 1-year mortality rate than patients who did not have prolonged ventilation (64% [95% CI, 62-65%] vs 17% [95% CI, 16.4-16.9%]). Thirty-day survivors who received prolonged mechanical ventilation had a 1-year mortality rate of 47% (95% CI, 45-48%). Thirty-day survivors who did not receive prolonged ventilation were more likely to be discharged home than patients who received prolonged ventilation 71% versus 10%. Patients who received prolonged ventilation and were not discharged by postoperative day 30 had a substantially increased 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.39 [95% CI, 3.29-5.85]) compared with patients discharged home by day 30. Hospitalized 30-day survivors who received prolonged mechanical ventilation and died within 6 months of their index procedure spent the majority of their remaining days hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation after high-risk surgery and survive 30 days have a significant 1-year risk of mortality and high burdens of treatment. This difficult trajectory should be considered in surgical decision making and has important implications for surgeons, intensivists, and patients.

Reduction of surgical site infections after laparoscopic gastric bypass with circular stapled gastrojejunostomy.

BACKGROUND: Circular stapled gastrojejunostomy (GJ) is favored by many surgeons during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). However, it has been associated with higher rates of surgical site infection (SSI). OBJECTIVES: To study the impact of introducing standard technical modifications (intervention) on the incidence of SSI after LRYGB with circular stapled GJ. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical center. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent primary LRYGB between May 2010 and September 2014 were separated into preintervention and postintervention cohorts. The intervention consisted of the use of a stapler cover, wound irrigation, antibiotic application to the wound, and primary wound closure. Predictor variables studied included patient demographic characteristics, the intervention, and other operative and perioperative factors. The primary outcome studied was SSI. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine factors independently associated with SSI. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty patients underwent LRYGB (preintervention n = 200, postintervention n = 130). Patients' characteristics were similar in both groups. A 21-mm stapler and chlorhexidine-based skin preparation were more frequently used in the postintervention group. SSI rate decreased from 15% to 3.8% (P<.01) after the intervention. On multivariate analysis, the intervention (OR .28, 95% CI .09-0.86, P = .026), use of chlorhexidine-based prep (OR .37, 95%CI .15-.93, P = .034), and maintenance of patient temperature (OR .47 95%CI .26-0.85, P = .012) were independently associated with reduced SSI rates. CONCLUSION: Use of a stapler cover, wound irrigation, wound antibiotic application, and primary wound closure were associated with a significantly lower wound infection rate after LRYGB with the circular stapled GJ. The observed SSI rates after our intervention are similar to those reported after hand-sewn and linear stapled techniques. In addition, other factors associated with decreasing the likelihood of developing SSI were use of chlorhexidine-based prep and maintaining intraoperative normothermia.

Constructing High-stakes Surgical Decisions: It's Better to Die Trying.

OBJECTIVE: To explore high-stakes surgical decision making from the perspective of seniors and surgeons. BACKGROUND: A majority of older chronically ill patients would decline a low-risk procedure if the outcome was severe functional impairment. However, 25% of Medicare beneficiaries have surgery in their last 3 months of life, which may be inconsistent with their preferences. How patients make decisions to have surgery may contribute to this problem of unwanted care. METHODS: We convened 4 focus groups at senior centers and 2 groups of surgeons in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where we showed a video about a decision regarding a choice between surgery and palliative care. We used qualitative content analysis to identify themes about communication and explanatory models for end-of-life treatment decisions. RESULTS: Seniors (n = 37) and surgeons (n = 17) agreed that maximizing quality of life should guide treatment decisions for older patients. However, when faced with an acute choice between surgery and palliative care, seniors viewed this either as a choice between life and death or a decision about how to die. Although surgeons agreed that very frail patients should not have surgery, they held conflicting views about presenting treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Seniors and surgeons highly value quality of life, but this notion is difficult to incorporate in acute surgical decisions. Some seniors use these values to consider a choice between surgery and palliative care, whereas others view this as a simple choice between life and death. Surgeons acknowledge challenges framing decisions and describe a clinical momentum that promotes surgical intervention.

"Best Case/Worst Case": Qualitative Evaluation of a Novel Communication Tool for Difficult in-the-Moment Surgical Decisions.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a communication tool called "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) based on an established conceptual model of shared decision-making. DESIGN: Focus group study. SETTING: Older adults (four focus groups) and surgeons (two focus groups) using modified questions from the Decision Aid Acceptability Scale and the Decisional Conflict Scale to evaluate and revise the communication tool. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 60 and older recruited from senior centers (n = 37) and surgeons from academic and private practices in Wisconsin (n = 17). MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative content analysis was used to explore themes and concepts that focus group respondents identified. RESULTS: Seniors and surgeons praised the tool for the unambiguous illustration of multiple treatment options and the clarity gained from presentation of an array of treatment outcomes. Participants noted that the tool provides an opportunity for in-the-moment, preference-based deliberation about options and a platform for further discussion with other clinicians and loved ones. Older adults worried that the format of the tool was not universally accessible for people with different educational backgrounds, and surgeons had concerns that the tool was vulnerable to physicians' subjective biases. CONCLUSION: The BC/WC tool is a novel decision support intervention that may help facilitate difficult decision-making for older adults and their physicians when considering invasive, acute medical treatments such as surgery.