Operating Room Supply Cost and Value of Care after Implementing a Sustainable Quality Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Variability in operating room supply cost is a modifiable cause of suboptimal resource use and low value of care (outcomes vs cost). This study describes implementation of a quality improvement intervention to decrease operating room supply costs. STUDY DESIGN: An automated electronic health record data pipeline harmonized operating room supply cost data with patient and case characteristics and outcomes. For inpatient procedures, predicted mortality and length of stay were used to calculate observed-to-expected ratios and value of care using validated equations. For commonly performed (1 or more per week) procedures, the pipeline generated figures illustrating individual surgeon performance vs peers, costs for each surgeon performing each case type, and control charts identifying out-of-control cases and surgeons with more than 90th percentile costs, which were shared with surgeons and division chiefs alongside guidance for modifying case-specific supply instructions to operating room nurses and technicians. RESULTS: Preintervention control (1,064 cases for 7 months) and postintervention (307 cases for 2 months) cohorts had similar baseline characteristics across all 16 commonly performed procedures. Median costs per case were lower in the intervention cohort ($811 [$525 to $1,367] vs controls: $1,080 [$603 to $1,574], p < 0.001), as was the incidence of out-of-control cases (19 (6.2%) vs 110 (10.3%), p = 0.03). Duration of surgery, length of stay, discharge disposition, and 30-day mortality and readmission rates were similar between cohorts. Value of care was higher in the intervention cohort (1.1 [0.1 to 1.5] vs 1.0 [0.2 to 1.4], p = 0.04). Pipeline runtime was 16:07. CONCLUSIONS: An automated, sustainable quality improvement intervention was associated with decreased operating room supply costs and increased value of care.

Retrospective value assessment of a dedicated, trauma hybrid operating room.

BACKGROUND: In traumatic hemorrhage, hybrid operating rooms offer near simultaneous performance of endovascular and open techniques, with correlations to earlier hemorrhage control, fewer transfusions, and possible decreased mortality. However, hybrid operating rooms are resource intensive. This study quantifies and describes a single-center experience with the complications, cost-utility, and value of a dedicated trauma hybrid operating room. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated 292 consecutive adult trauma patients who underwent immediate (<4 hours) operative intervention at a Level I trauma center. A total of 106 patients treated before the construction of a hybrid operating room served as historical controls to the 186 patients treated thereafter. Demographics, hemorrhage-control procedures, and financial data as well as postoperative complications and outcomes were collected via electronic medical records. Value and incremental cost-utility ratio were calculated. RESULTS: Demographics and severity of illness were similar between cohorts. Resuscitative endovascular occlusion of the aorta was more frequently used in the hybrid operating room. Hemorrhage control occurred faster (60 vs. 49 minutes, p = 0.005) and, in the 4- to 24-hour postadmission period, required less red blood cell (mean, 1.0 vs. 0 U, p = 0.001) and plasma (mean, 1.0 vs. 0 U, p < 0.001) transfusions. Complications were similar except for a significant decrease in pneumonia (7% vs. 4%, p = 0.008). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo classification, ≥3) were similar. Across the patient admission, costs were not significantly different ($50,023 vs. $54,740, p = 0.637). There was no change in overall value (1.00 vs. 1.07, p = 0.778). CONCLUSION: The conversion of our standard trauma operating room to an endovascular hybrid operating room provided measurable improvements in hemorrhage control, red blood cell and plasma transfusions, and postoperative pneumonia without significant increase in cost. Value was unchanged. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/Value-Based Evaluations; Level III.

Surgical resident experience with common bile duct exploration and assessment of performance and autonomy with formative feedback.

BACKGROUND: Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is safe and effective for managing choledocholithiasis, but most US general surgeons have limited experience with CBDE and are uncomfortable performing this procedure in practice. Surgical trainee exposure to CBDE is limited, and their learning curve for achieving autonomous, practice-ready performance has not been previously described. This study tests the hypothesis that receipt of one or more prior CBDE operative performance assessments, combined with formative feedback, is associated with greater resident operative performance and autonomy. METHODS: Resident and attending assessments of resident operative performance and autonomy were obtained for 189 laparoscopic or open CBDEs performed at 28 institutions. Performance and autonomy were graded along validated ordinal scales. Cases in which the resident had one or more prior CBDE case evaluations (n = 48) were compared with cases in which the resident had no prior evaluations (n = 141). RESULTS: Compared with cases in which the resident had no prior CBDE case evaluations, cases with a prior evaluation had greater proportions of practice-ready or exceptional performance ratings according to both residents (27% vs. 11%, p = .009) and attendings (58% vs. 19%, p < .001) and had greater proportions of passive help or supervision only autonomy ratings according to both residents (17% vs. 4%, p = .009) and attendings (69% vs. 32%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Residents with at least one prior CBDE evaluation and formative feedback demonstrated better operative performance and received greater autonomy than residents without prior evaluations, underscoring the propensity of feedback to help residents achieve autonomous, practice-ready performance for rare operations.

Association of Postoperative Undertriage to Hospital Wards With Mortality and Morbidity.

Importance: Undertriaging patients who are at increased risk for postoperative complications after surgical procedures to low-acuity hospital wards (ie, floors) rather than highly vigilant intensive care units (ICUs) may be associated with risk of unrecognized decompensation and worse patient outcomes, but evidence for these associations is lacking. Objective: To test the hypothesis that postoperative undertriage is associated with increased mortality and morbidity compared with risk-matched ICU admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the University of Florida Integrated Data Repository on admissions to a university hospital. Included patients were individuals aged 18 years or older who were admitted after a surgical procedure from June 1, 2014, to August 20, 2020. Data were analyzed from April through August 2021. Exposures: Ward admissions were considered undertriaged if their estimated risk for hospital mortality or prolonged ICU stay (ie, ≥48 hours) was in the top quartile among all inpatient surgical procedures according to a validated machine-learning model using preoperative and intraoperative electronic health record features available at surgical procedure end time. A nearest neighbors algorithm was used to identify a risk-matched control group of ICU admissions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes of hospital mortality and morbidity were compared among appropriately triaged ward admissions, undertriaged wards admissions, and a risk-matched control group of ICU admissions. Results: Among 12 348 postoperative ward admissions, 11 042 admissions (89.4%) were appropriately triaged (5927 [53.7%] women; median [IQR] age, 59 [44-70] years) and 1306 admissions (10.6%) were undertriaged and matched with a control group of 2452 ICU admissions. The undertriaged group, compared with the control group, had increased median [IQR] age (64 [54-74] years vs 62 [50-73] years; P = .001) and increased proportions of women (649 [49.7%] women vs 1080 [44.0%] women; P < .001) and admitted patients with do not resuscitate orders before first surgical procedure (53 admissions [4.1%] vs 27 admissions [1.1%]); P < .001); 207 admissions that were undertriaged (15.8%) had subsequent ICU admission. In the validation cohort, hospital mortality and prolonged ICU stay estimations had areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.92-0.92), respectively. The undertriaged group, compared with the control group, had similar incidence of prolonged mechanical ventilation (32 admissions [2.5%] vs 53 admissions [2.2%]; P = .60), decreased median (IQR) total costs for admission ($26 900 [$18 400-$42 300] vs $32 700 [$22 700-$48 500]; P < .001), increased median (IQR) hospital length of stay (8.1 [5.1-13.6] days vs 6.0 [3.3-9.3] days, P < .001), and increased incidence of hospital mortality (19 admissions [1.5%] vs 17 admissions [0.7%]; P = .04), discharge to hospice (23 admissions [1.8%] vs 14 admissions [0.6%]; P < .001), unplanned intubation (45 admissions [3.4%] vs 49 admissions [2.0%]; P = .01), and acute kidney injury (341 admissions [26.1%] vs 477 admissions [19.5%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that admitted patients at increased risk for postoperative complications who were undertriaged to hospital wards had increased mortality and morbidity compared with a risk-matched control group of admissions to ICUs. Postoperative undertriage was identifiable using automated preoperative and intraoperative data as features in real-time machine-learning models.

Prevalence and extent of industry support for program directors of surgical fellowships in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fellowship program directors have a considerable influence on the future practice patterns of their trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that industry can also exert substantial influence on the practice patterns of physicians as a whole. The purpose of this study is to quantify industry support of fellowship program directors across surgical subspecialties and to assess the prevalence of this support within specific subspecialties. METHODS: Fellowship program directors for acute care, breast, burn, cardio-thoracic, critical care, colon and rectal, endocrine, hepato-pancreato-biliary, minimally invasive, plastic, oncologic, pediatric, and vascular surgery for 2017 were identified using a previously described database. The Open Payments Database for 2017 was queried and data regarding general payments, research, associated research payments, and ownership were obtained. The national mean and median payouts to nonfellowship program director surgeons were used to determine subspecialties with substantial industry support. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-six fellowship program directors were identified. Of these, 77% of the fellowship program directors had a presence on the Open Payments Database. The subspecialties with the most fellowship program directors receiving any industry payment, regardless of amount, included vascular (93.5%), cardio-thoracic (92.8%), minimally invasive surgery (90.5%), plastics (85.3%), and colon and rectal (81.0%). The subspecialty with the greatest mean payment was minimally invasive surgery (21,175 US dollars); the greatest median payment was vascular (1,871 US dollars). The 3 most common types of payments were for general compensation (31.4%), consulting fees (28.7%), and travel and lodging (14.7%). Vascular surgery had the greatest percentage of fellowship program directors receiving research payments (48%). The greatest amount paid to any individual fellowship program director was 382,368 US dollars. Excluding outliers, fellowship program directors received substantially more payments than those received on average by general surgeons. CONCLUSION: The majority of fellowship program directors receive some industry support. Most payments are for compensation for noncontinuing medical education related services and consulting fees. Certain specialties were more likely to have industry payments than others. Overall, only a minority of fellowship program directors received research support from industry. We advocate for transparent discussions between fellowship program directors and their trainees to help foster healthy academic-industry collaborations.