Association of Routine Preoperative Frailty Assessment With 1-Year Postoperative Mortality.

Importance: Patient frailty is a known risk factor for adverse outcomes following surgery, but data are limited regarding whether systemwide interventions related to frailty are associated with improved patient outcomes. Objective: To evaluate whether a frailty screening initiative (FSI) is associated with reduced late-term mortality after elective surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study with an interrupted time series analysis used data from a longitudinal cohort of patients in a multihospital, integrated health care system in the US. Beginning in July 2016, surgeons were incentivized to measure frailty with the Risk Analysis Index (RAI) for all patients considering elective surgery. Implementation of the BPA occurred in February 2018. The cutoff for data collection was May 31, 2019. Analyses were conducted between January and September 2022. Exposures: The exposure of interest was an Epic Best Practice Alert (BPA) used to identify patients with frailty (RAI ≥42) and prompt surgeons to document a frailty-informed shared decision-making process and consider additional evaluation by a multidisciplinary presurgical care clinic or the primary care physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 365-day mortality after the elective surgical procedure. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 180-day mortality as well as the proportion of patients referred for additional evaluation based on documented frailty. Results: A total of 50 463 patients with at least 1 year of postsurgical follow-up (22 722 before intervention implementation and 27 741 after) were included (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [16.0] y; 57.6% women). Demographic characteristics, RAI score, and operative case mix, as defined by Operative Stress Score, were similar between time periods. After BPA implementation, the proportion of frail patients referred to a primary care physician and presurgical care clinic increased significantly (9.8% vs 24.6% and 1.3% vs 11.4%, respectively; both P < .001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated an 18% reduction in the odds of 1-year mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92; P < .001). Interrupted time series models demonstrated a significant slope change in the rate of 365-day mortality from 0.12% in the preintervention period to -0.04% in the postintervention period. Among patients triggering the BPA, estimated 1-year mortality changed by -4.2% (95% CI, -6.0% to -2.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement study found that implementation of an RAI-based FSI was associated with increased referrals of frail patients for enhanced presurgical evaluation. These referrals translated to a survival advantage among frail patients of similar magnitude to those observed in a Veterans Affairs health care setting, providing further evidence for both the effectiveness and generalizability of FSIs incorporating the RAI.

Coaching to Bedside Shift Report and Its Correlation to Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and Value-Based Purchasing Dimension Scores: A Multihospital Implementation Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multihospital study was to investigate how the intervention of coaching to bedside shift report (BSR) correlates with Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) outcomes and relates to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program points over a 4-year period (2017-2020) for an acute care hospital health system. BACKGROUND: Hospital leaders' responsibilities include intertwined areas of patient experience and fiscal accountability. Coaching to BSR is reported to have numerous benefits to the patient's experience. Published studies completed with hospital systems evaluating the intervention of coaching to BSR and how it correlated to patient experience and VBP are limited. METHODS: Coaching to BSR was implemented at 16 adult acute care hospitals. Patient-reported BSR rates were collected in tandem with HCAHPS for 4 years. Statistical correlations were assessed between patient-reported BSR and HCAHPS and consequential effect on VBP dimension scores. RESULTS: Coaching to BSR had a significant impact on top- and bottom-box "rate the hospital" HCAHPS scores at a system and hospital level. Value-based purchasing points and percentages increased over 2017-2020, potentially leading to lower CMS penalty claims over the period the BSR was implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Coaching is a key factor when creating a favorable patient experience. The implementation and sustainability of coaching to BSR may result in improved patient experience ratings and increase VBP point accumulation to hospital systems.