Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery.

ABSTRACT: This forum summarizes the proceedings of the joint European Surgical Association (ESA)/American Surgical Association (ASA) symposium on Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery that took place in Bordeaux, France, as part of the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the ESA. Three presentations focused on a) the main messages from the Outcome4Medicine Consensus Conference, which took place in Zurich, Switzerland, in June 2022, b) the patient perspective, and c) benchmarking were hold by ESA members and discussed by ASA members in a symposium attended by members of both associations.

Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations. BACKGROUND/METHODS: Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents. RESULTS: Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely "market driven" approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.

Comparison Costs of ERCP and MRCP in Patients with Suspected Biliary Obstruction Based on a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients with suspected biliary obstruction remains unclear, and includes the possible performance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). OBJECTIVES: To complete a cost analysis based on a medical effectiveness randomized trial comparing an ERCP-first approach with an MRCP-first approach in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction. METHODS: The management strategies were based on a medical effectiveness trial of 257 patients over a 12-month follow-up period. Direct and indirect costs were included, adopting a societal perspective. The cost values are expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Total per-patient direct costs were Can$3547 for ERCP-first patients and Can$4013 for MRCP-first patients. Corresponding indirect costs were Can$732 and Can$694, respectively. Causes for differences in direct costs included a more frequent second procedure and a greater mean number of hospital days over the year in patients of the MRCP-first group. In contrast, it is the ERCP-first patients whose indirect costs were greater, principally due to more time away from activities of daily living. Choosing an ERCP-first strategy rather than an MRCP-first strategy saved on average Can$428 per patient over the 12-month follow-up duration; however, there existed a large amount of overlap when varying total cost estimates across a sensitivity analysis range based on observed resources utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This cost analysis suggests only a small difference in total costs, favoring the ERCP-first group, and is principally attributable to procedures and hospitalizations with little impact from indirect cost measurements.

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.