High-volume hospitals are associated with lower mortality among high-risk emergency general surgery patients.

INTRODUCTION: We have previously demonstrated that Emergency General Surgery (EGS) patients treated at high-volume hospitals experience lower mortality rates than those treated at low-volume hospitals. However, EGS comprises a wide spectrum of diseases. Our goal was to determine which EGS diseases had better outcomes at high-volume hospitals. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database for 2013 (a nationwide representative sample). Patients with EGS diseases were identified using American Association for the Surgery of Trauma definitions. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to measure risk-adjusted probability of death, adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance type, and comorbidities. Patients were then grouped into 16 risk groups based upon their predicted probability of death. We then compared observed mortality rates at high- versus low-volume hospitals within each risk group. RESULTS: Nationwide, 3,006,615 patients with EGS diseases were treated at 4,083 hospitals in 2013. Patients with predicted risk of death of 4% or higher (275,615 patients, 9.2%) had lower observed mortality rates at high-volume hospitals than at low-volume hospitals (7.7% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001). We estimated that 1,002 deaths were potentially preventable if high-risk patients who were treated at low-volume hospitals were instead transferred to high-volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: EGS patients with predicted risk of death of 4% or higher experience lower mortality rates at high-volume hospitals than at low-volume hospitals. A regional system of EGS care that enables rapid transfer of high-risk patients to high-volume hospitals may prevent several deaths. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III; Therapeutic/Case Management, level IV.

Analysis of the direct cost of surgery for four diagnostic categories of adult spinal deformity.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Existing literature on adult spinal deformity (ASD) offers little guidance regarding an evidence-based approach to care. To optimize the value of medical treatment, a thorough understanding of the cost of surgical treatment for ASD is required. PURPOSE: To evaluate four clinically and radiographically distinct groups of ASD and identify and compare the cost of surgical treatment among the groups. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective study of consecutive surgeries for ASD. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred twenty-five consecutive ASD patients treated between 2008 and 2010. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost data were collected from hospital administrative records on the direct costs (DCs) incurred for the episode of surgical care, excluding overhead. METHODS: Based on preoperative radiographs and history, patients were categorized into one of four diagnostic categories of deformity: primary idiopathic scoliosis (PIS), primary degenerative scoliosis (PDS), primary sagittal plane deformity (PSPD), and revision (R). Analysis of variance and generalized linear model regressions were used to analyze the DCs of surgery and to assess differences in costs across the four diagnostic categories considered. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in DC of surgery for different categories of ASD, with surgical treatment for PDS the most expensive followed in decreasing order by PSPD, PIS, and R (p<.01). Results further revealed a significant positive relationship between age and DC (p<.01) and a significant positive relationship between length of stay and DC (p<.01). Among PIS patients, for every incremental increase in levels fused, the expected DC increased by $3,997 (p=.00). Fusion to pelvis also significantly increased the DC of surgery for patients aged 18 to 29 years (p<.01) and 30 to 59 years (p<.01) but not for 60 years or more (p=.86). CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing DC of surgery with increasing age, length of hospital stay, length of fusion, and fusions to the pelvis. Revision surgery is the least expensive surgery on average and should therefore not preclude its consideration from a pure cost perspective.

Journey to no preventable risk: the Baylor Health Care System patient safety experience.

The patient safety vision at Baylor Health Care System (BHCS) has 3 components: (1) achieving no preventable deaths, (2) ensuring no preventable injuries, and (3) seeking no preventable risk. These goals require strategic efforts in the categories of culture, processes, and technology. Culture focuses on tactics such as teamwork training and quality improvement education. Processes are measured using the percentage adoption of a variety of target clinical processes such as order set use and adherence to National Patient Safety Goals. Technology includes focus areas such as clinical decision support and reliability of the electronic health record. BHCS has also achieved significant systemwide standardization of safety processes and development of the systemwide Office of Patient Safety to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based patient safety practices. Associated with these improvements, BHCS has made significant progress toward reducing hospital-standardized mortality rates and rates of hospital-acquired adverse events.