Index hospital cost of adverse events following thoracic surgery: a systematic review of economic literature.

OBJECTIVES: Adverse events (AEs) following thoracic surgery place considerable strain on healthcare systems. A rigorous evaluation of the economic impact of thoracic surgical AEs remains lacking and is required to understand the value of money of formal quality improvement initiatives. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of all available literature focused on specific cost of postoperative AEs following thoracic surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review of the economic literature was performed, following recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. DATA SOURCES: An economic search filter developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health was applied, and MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included English articles involving adult patients who underwent a thoracic surgical procedure with estimated costs of postoperative complications. Eligible study designs included comparative observational studies, randomised control trials, decision analytic or cost-prediction models, cost analyses, cost or burden of illness studies, economic evaluation studies and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of cost analyses and cost of illness studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts in the first stage and full-text articles of included studies in the second stage. Disagreements during abstract and full-text screening stages were resolved via discussion until a consensus was reached. Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. RESULTS: 3349 studies were identified: 20 met inclusion criteria. Most were conducted in the USA (12/20), evaluating AE impact on hospital expenditures (18/20). 68 procedure-specific AE mean costs were characterised (USD$). The most commonly described were anastomotic leak (mean:range) (USD$49 278:$6 176-$133 002) and pneumonia ($12 258:$2608-$34 591) following esophagectomy, and prolonged air leak ($2556:$571-$3573), respiratory failure ($19 062:$11 841-$37 812), empyema ($30 189:$23 784-$36 595), pneumonia ($15 362:$2542-$28 183), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury ($16 420:$4224-$28 616) and arrhythmia ($6835:$5833-$8659) following lobectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital costs associated with AEs following thoracic surgery are substantial and varied. Quantifying costs of AEs enable future economic evaluation studies, which could help prioritising value-directed quality improvement to optimally improve outcomes and reduce costs.

Multicentre positive deviance to reduce adverse events and length of stay after pulmonary resection.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adverse events (AEs) following pulmonary resection enormously impact patient well-being, length of stay (LOS) and healthcare costs. Standardised AE data collection can be used to identify positive outliers demonstrating positive deviance (PD) who may be helpful to inform the best practice. Here, we describe our initial experience of a novel quality improvement process using PD to reduce LOS and AEs. METHODS: AE rates and LOS were collected from four centres (2014-2020) using a common dictionary. Surgeons repeatedly participated in 60 to 90 min seminars consisting of the following process: identify outcome and procedure targeted, review relevant best evidence literature, view all data anonymised by surgeon or centre (if multicentre), choose and reveal identity of best performance PD outliers, who discuss their management principles while all receive self-evaluation reports, followed by collegial discussion to generate consensus recommendations, voted by all. We assessed overall impact on AEs and LOS using aggregate data in a before/after analysis. RESULTS: A total of 131 surgeons (average 12/seminar) participated in 11 PD seminars (8 local and 3 multicentre), yielding 85 consensus recommendation (average 8/seminar). Median LOS following lobectomy decreased from 4.0 to 3.0 days (p=0.04) following local PD seminars and from 4.0 to 3.5 days (p=0.11) following multicentre seminars. Trends for reductions in multiple AE rates were also observed. CONCLUSION: While limited by the longitudinal design, these findings provide preliminary support for this data-driven, collegial and actionable quality improvement process to help standardise and improve patient care, and merits further more rigorous investigation.

Economic feasibility of a novel tool to assist extubation decision-making: an early health economic modeling.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the minimum percent change in failed extubation to make a tool designed to reduce extubation failure (Extubation Advisor [EA]) economically viable. METHODS: We conducted an early return on investment (ROI) analysis using data from intubated intensive care unit (ICU) patients at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital. We obtained input parameters from the hospital database and published literature. We ran generalized linear models to estimate the attributable length of stay, total hospital cost, and time to subsequent extubation attempt following failure. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected ROI and performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings. Costs were presented in 2020 Canadian dollars (C$). RESULTS: The model estimated a 1 percent reduction in failed extubation could save the hospital C$289 per intubated patient (95 percent CI: 197, 459). A large center seeing 2,500 intubated ICU patients per year could save C$723,124/year/percent reduction in failed extubation. At the current annual price of C$164,221, the EA tool must reduce extubation failure by at least 0.24 percent (95 percent CI: .14, .41) to make the tool cost-effective at our site. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decision-support tools like the EA may play an important role in reducing healthcare costs by reducing the rate of extubation failure, a costly event in the ICU.

Lung-Protective Ventilation and Associated Outcomes and Costs Among Patients Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in the ED.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation is often initiated in the ED, and mechanically ventilated patients may be kept in the ED for hours before ICU transfer. Although lung-protective ventilation is beneficial, particularly in ARDS, it remains uncertain how often lung-protective tidal volumes are used in the ED, and whether lung-protective ventilation in this setting impacts patient outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between the use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED and outcomes among invasively ventilated patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis (2011-2017) of a prospective registry from eight EDs enrolling consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED was performed. Lung-protective ventilation was defined by use of tidal volumes ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of ARDS, hospital length of stay, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: The study included 4,174 patients, of whom 2,437 (58.4%) received lung-protective ventilation in the ED. Use of lung-protective ventilation was associated with decreased odds of hospital death (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96) and development of ARDS (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92). Patients who received lung-protective ventilation in the ED had shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (4 vs 5 days; P < 0.01), shorter median hospital length of stay (11 vs 14 days; P < .001), and reduced total hospital costs (Can$44,348 vs Can$52,484 [US$34,153 vs US$40,418]; P = .03) compared with patients who received higher tidal volumes. INTERPRETATION: Use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED was associated with important patient- and system-centered outcomes, including lower hospital mortality, decreased incidence of ARDS, lower hospital length of stay, and decreased total costs. Protocol development promoting the regular use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED may be of value.

Predictors of mortality and cost among surgical patients requiring rapid response team activation.

Background: Prior studies of rapid response team (RRT) implementation for surgical patients have demonstrated mixed results with respect to reductions in poor outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality and hospital costs among surgical inpatients requiring RRT activation. Methods: We analyzed data prospectively collected from May 2012 to May 2016 at The Ottawa Hospital. We included patients who were at least 18 years of age, who were admitted to hospital, who received either preoperative or postoperative care, and and who required RRT activation. We created a multivariable logistic regression model to describe mortality predictors and a multivariable generalized linear model to describe cost predictors. Results: We included 1507 patients. The in-hospital mortality rate was 15.9%. The patient-related factors most strongly associated with mortality included an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score of 20 or higher (odds ratio [OR] 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.96-6.60) and care designations excluding admission to the intensive care unit and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR 3.52, 95% CI 2.25-5.52). The strongest surgical predictors included neurosurgical admission (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.17-3.75), emergent surgery (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.37-3.03) and occurrence of 2 or more operations (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21-2.46). Among RRT factors, occurrence of 2 or more RRT assessments (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.44-2.80) conferred the highest mortality. Increased cost was strongly associated with admitting service, multiple surgeries, multiple RRT assessments and medical comorbidity. Conclusion: RRT activation among surgical inpatients identifies a population at high risk of death. We identified several predictors of mortality and cost, which represent opportunities for future quality improvement and patient safety initiatives.

Contexte: Les études sur la mobilisation d'équipes d'intervention rapide (EIR) auprès de patients en chirurgie ont donné des résultats mitigés quant à la réduction des issues négatives. La présente étude visait à déterminer les facteurs prédictifs de coûts pour les hôpitaux et de mortalité chez les patients en chirurgie nécessitant la mobilisation d'une EIR. Méthodes: Nous avons analysé des données recueillies de manière prospective de mai 2012 à mai 2016 à l'Hôpital d'Ottawa. Nous avons inclus les patients hospitalisés de 18 ans et plus qui ont reçu des soins préopératoires ou postopératoires et qui ont nécessité l'intervention d'une EIR. Nous avons ensuite créé un modèle de régression logistique multivariée pour décrire les facteurs prédictifs de mortalité et un modèle linéaire généralisé multivarié pour décrire les facteurs prédictifs de coûts. Résultats: Nous avons retenus 1507 patients. Le taux global de mortalité à l'hôpital était de 15,9 %. Les principaux facteurs de mortalité liés au patient étaient un indice de comorbidité d'Elixhauser supérieur ou égal à 20 (rapport de cotes [RC] 3,60, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 1,96­6,60) et des objectifs de soins excluant l'admission à l'unité des soins intensifs et la réanimation cardiorespiratoire (RC 3,52, IC à 95 % 2,25­5,52). Les principaux facteurs prédictifs liés aux interventions sont l'admission en neurochirurgie (RC 2,09, IC à 95 % 1,17­3,75), l'intervention chirurgicale d'urgence (RC 2,04, IC à 95 % 1,37­3,03) et le fait d'avoir subi au moins 2 opérations (RC 1,73, IC à 95 % 1,21­2,46). Parmi les facteurs liés aux EIR, la tenue d'au moins 2 évaluations par l'EIR s'accompagnait du mortalité le plus élevé (RC 2,01, IC à 95 % 1,44­2,80). L'augmentation des coûts était étroitement associée au service d'admission, aux interventions chirurgicales multiples, aux évaluations multiples par l'EIR et à la comorbidité médicale. Conclusion: La mobilisation d'EIR auprès de patients en chirurgie permet de mettre en évidence une population à risque élevé de décès. Nous avons découvert plusieurs facteurs prédictifs de mortalité et de coûts, dont on pourra se servir pour améliorer la qualité des soins et la sécurité des patients.

Emergency Department disposition decisions and associated mortality and costs in ICU patients with suspected infection.

BACKGROUND: Following emergency department (ED) assessment, patients with infection may be directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or alternatively admitted to hospital wards or sent home. Those admitted to the hospital wards or sent home may experience future deterioration necessitating ICU admission. METHODS: We used a prospectively collected registry from two hospitals within a single tertiary care hospital network between 2011 and 2014. Patient information, outcomes, and costs were stored in the hospital data warehouse. Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) admitted directly from the ED to the ICU; (2) initially admitted to the hospital wards, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation; or (3) sent home from the ED, with ICU admission within 72 hours of initial presentation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we sought to compare outcomes and total costs between groups. Total costs were evaluated using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: A total of 657 patients were included; of these, 338 (51.4%) were admitted directly from the ED to the ICU, 246 (37.4%) were initially admitted to the wards and then to the ICU, and 73 (11.1%) were initially sent home and then admitted to the ICU. In-hospital mortality was lowest among patients admitted directly to the ICU (29.5%), as compared with patients admitted to the ICU from wards (42.7%) or home (61.6%) (P < 0.001). As compared with direct ICU admission, disposition to the ward was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.75 (95% CI, 1.22-2.50; P < 0.01) for mortality, and disposition home was associated with an adjusted OR of 4.02 (95% CI, 2.32-6.98). Mean total costs were lowest among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($26,748), as compared with those admitted from the wards ($107,315) and those initially sent home ($71,492) (P < 0.001). Cost per survivor was lower among patients directly admitted to the ICU ($37,986) than either those initially admitted to the wards ($187,230) or those sent home ($186,390) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with direct admission to the ICU, patients with suspected infection admitted to the ICU who have previously been discharged home or admitted to the ward are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and costs.

Prognostic Accuracy of the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for Mortality in Patients With Suspected Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) has been proposed for prediction of mortality in patients with suspected infection. Purpose: To summarize and compare the prognostic accuracy of qSOFA and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria for prediction of mortality in adult patients with suspected infection. Data Sources: Four databases from inception through November 2017. Study Selection: English-language studies using qSOFA for prediction of mortality (in-hospital, 28-day, or 30-day) in adult patients with suspected infection in the intensive care unit (ICU), emergency department (ED), or hospital wards. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality using standard criteria. Data Synthesis: Thirty-eight studies were included (n = 385 333). qSOFA was associated with a pooled sensitivity of 60.8% (95% CI, 51.4% to 69.4%) and a pooled specificity of 72.0% (CI, 63.4% to 79.2%) for mortality. The SIRS criteria were associated with a pooled sensitivity of 88.1% (CI, 82.3% to 92.1%) and a pooled specificity of 25.8% (CI, 17.1% to 36.9%). The pooled sensitivity of qSOFA was higher in the ICU population (87.2% [CI, 75.8% to 93.7%]) than the non-ICU population (51.2% [CI, 43.6% to 58.7%]). The pooled specificity of qSOFA was higher in the non-ICU population (79.6% [CI, 73.3% to 84.7%]) than the ICU population (33.3% [CI, 23.8% to 44.4%]). Limitation: Potential risk of bias in included studies due to qSOFA interpretation and patient selection. Conclusion: qSOFA had poor sensitivity and moderate specificity for short-term mortality. The SIRS criteria had sensitivity superior to that of qSOFA, supporting their use for screening of patients and as a prompt for treatment initiation. Primary Funding Source: Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42017075964).

Implementation of a structured hospital-wide morbidity and mortality rounds model.

IMPORTANCE: There is a paucity of literature on the quality and effectiveness of institutional morbidity & mortality (M&M) rounds processes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-wide structured M&M rounds model at improving the quality of M&M rounds across multiple specialties. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a prospective interventional study involving 24 clinical groups (1584 physicians) at a tertiary care teaching hospital from January 2013 to June 2015. INTERVENTION: We implemented the published Ottowa M&M Model (OM3): appropriate case selection, cognitive/system issues analyses, interprofessional participation, dissemination of lessons and effector mechanisms. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We created an OM3 scoring index reflecting these elements to measure the quality of M&M rounds. Secondary outcomes include explicit discussions of cognitive/system issues and resultant action items. RESULTS: OM3 scores for all participating groups improved significantly from a median of 12.0/24 (95% CI 10 to 14) to 20.0/24 (95% CI 18 to 21). An increased frequency of in-rounds discussion around cognitive biases (pre 154/417 (37%), post 256/466 (55%); p<0.05) and system issues (pre 175/417 (42%), post 259/466 (62%); p<0.05) were reported by participants via online surveys postintervention, while in-person surveys throughout the intervention period demonstrated even higher frequencies (cognitive biases 1222/1437 (85%); system issues 1250/1437 (87%)). We found 45 action items resulting directly from M&M rounds postintervention, compared with none preintervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of a structured model enhanced the quality of M&M rounds with demonstrable policy improvements hospital wide. The OM3 can be feasibly implemented at other hospitals to effectively improve quality of M&M rounds across different specialties.

Digital versus analogue pleural drainage phase 1: prospective evaluation of interobserver reliability in the assessment of pulmonary air leaks.

OBJECTIVES: The ability to accurately characterize a pulmonary air leak is an essential skill in chest medicine and surgery. The objective was to evaluate interobserver variability in air leak assessments using analogue and digital pleural drainage systems. METHODS: Air leak severity in lung resection patients with a pulmonary air leak was prospectively evaluated by at least one thoracic surgeon, one surgical resident and one to two nurses using a standardized questionnaire. The first assessment was performed with pleural drains connected to an analogue system. Subsequently, patients were re-assessed after changing from the analogue to a digital drainage system. The thoracic surgeon's evaluation was considered the reference standard for comparison. Agreement between observers was quantified using the kappa (κ) statistic. RESULTS: A total of 128 air leak evaluations were completed in 30 patients (thoracic surgeon = 30; nurses = 56; resident = 30; physiotherapists = 12). The mean time between analogue and digital assessment was 2.16 (±1.66) h. The level of observer agreement regarding air leak severity significantly increased from very slight to substantial when using the digital drainage system [analogue κ = 0.03; confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.11; P = 0.40) (digital κ = 0.61; CI: 0.49-0.73; P < 0.01]. Similar improvements were observed in subgroups of health-care professionals using digital technology. CONCLUSIONS: Digital pleural drainage technology improves the agreement level between members of the health-care team when assessing the severity of a pulmonary air leak after lung resection.

Nonbeneficial treatment Canada: definitions, causes, and potential solutions from the perspective of healthcare practitioners*.

OBJECTIVE: Many healthcare workers are concerned about the provision of nonbeneficial treatment in the acute care setting. We sought to explore the perceptions of acute care practitioners to determine whether they perceived nonbeneficial treatment to be a problem, to generate an acceptable definition of nonbeneficial treatment, to learn about their perceptions of the impact and causes of nonbeneficial treatment, and the ways that they feel could reduce or resolve nonbeneficial treatment. DESIGN: National, bilingual, cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of nursing and medical staff who provide direct patient care in acute medical wards or ICUs in Canada. MAIN RESULTS: We received 688 responses (response rate 61%) from 11 sites. Seventy-four percent of respondents were nurses. Eighty-two percent of respondents believe that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate. The most acceptable definitions of nonbeneficial treatment were "advanced curative/life-prolonging treatments that would almost certainly result in a quality of life that the patient has previously stated that he/she would not want" (88% agreement) and "advanced curative/life-prolonging treatments that are not consistent with the goals of care (as indicated by the patient)" (83% agreement). Respondents most commonly believed that nonbeneficial treatment was caused by substitute decision makers who do not understand the limitations of treatment, or who cannot accept a poor prognosis (90% agreement for each cause), and 52% believed that nonbeneficial treatment was "often" or "always" continued until the patient died or was discharged from hospital. Respondents believed that nonbeneficial treatment was a common problem with a negative impact on all stakeholders (> 80%) and perceived that improved advance care planning and communication training would be the most effective (92% and 88%, respectively) and morally acceptable (95% and 92%, respectively) means to resolve the problem of nonbeneficial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian nurses and physicians perceive that our current means of resolving nonbeneficial treatment are inadequate, and that we need to adopt new techniques of resolving nonbeneficial treatment. The most promising strategies to reduce nonbeneficial treatment are felt to be improved advance care planning and communication training for healthcare professionals.

Evaluating the reliability and reproducibility of the Ottawa Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality classification system.

BACKGROUND: Minimizing adverse events after surgery is widely recognized as an important indicator of quality; yet no consensus has been reached on how to standardize the reporting of adverse events after surgical procedures. Our objectives were to develop a standardized classification system to monitor both the presence and severity of thoracic morbidity and mortality, and to evaluate its reliability and reproducibility among a national cohort of thoracic surgeons. METHODS: To assess the Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality classification system (based on the Clavien-Dindo classification of adverse events), a 31-item questionnaire was sent to all members of the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons in August 2009, consisting of a general description of the Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality severity grades, 20 case-based questions of postoperative adverse events to be classified, and questions regarding personal judgments. We derived descriptive and quantitative information using weighted Kappa statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two (54.7%) thoracic surgeons completed the questionnaire; 41 (78.8%) of the respondents were affiliated with an academic teaching hospital. A total of 1,326 individual weighted Kappa statistics were calculated for all distinct pairs of raters, of which 1,152 (87%) were greater than 0.81, a range that is interpreted as "almost perfect agreement." A further 174 (13%) were in the range between 0.61 and 0.8, interpreted as "substantial agreement." All results were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). The classification system was regarded as straightforward (98% of the respondents), reproducible (94%), logical (92%), and useful (98%). CONCLUSIONS: The modified classification system appears to offer objective, reliable, and reproducible reporting of thoracic morbidity and mortality, and thus may assist continuous quality improvement in thoracic surgery.