Social Determinants of Long-Term Opioid Use Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) risks persistent pain and long-term opioid use (LTO). The role of social determinants of health (SDoH) in LTO is not well established. We hypothesized that SDoH would be associated with postsurgical LTO after controlling for relevant demographic and clinical variables. This study utilized data from the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program, VA Corporate Data Warehouse, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including Veterans aged ≥ 65 who underwent elective TKA between 2013 and 2019 with no postsurgical complications or history of significant opioid use. LTO was defined as > 90 days of opioid use beginning within 90 days postsurgery. SDoH variables included the Area Deprivation Index, rurality, and housing instability in the last 12 months identified via medical record screener or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. Multivariable risk adjustment models controlled for demographic and clinical characteristics. Of the 9,064 Veterans, 97% were male, 84.2% white, mean age was 70.6 years, 46.3% rural, 11.2% living in highly deprived areas, and 0.9% with a history of homelessness/housing instability. Only 3.7% (n = 336) developed LTO following TKA. In a logistic regression model of only SDoH variables, housing instability (odds ratio [OR] = 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-5.22) and rurality conferred significant risk for LTO. After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, LTO was only associated with increasing days of opioid supply in the year prior to surgery (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.43-1.63 per 30 days) and the initial opioid fill (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.06-1.08 per day). Our primary hypothesis was not supported; however, our findings do suggest that patients with housing instability may present unique challenges for postoperative pain management and be at higher risk for LTO.

Presentation Acuity and Surgical Outcomes for Patients With Health Insurance Living in Highly Deprived Neighborhoods.

Importance: Insurance coverage expansion has been proposed as a solution to improving health disparities, but insurance expansion alone may be insufficient to alleviate care access barriers. Objective: To assess the association of Area Deprivation Index (ADI) with postsurgical textbook outcomes (TO) and presentation acuity for individuals with private insurance or Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) merged with electronic health record data from 3 academic health care systems. Data were analyzed from June 2022 to August 2023. Exposure: Living in a neighborhood with an ADI greater than 85. Main Outcomes and Measures: TO, defined as absence of unplanned reoperations, Clavien-Dindo grade 4 complications, mortality, emergency department visits/observation stays, and readmissions, and presentation acuity, defined as having preoperative acute serious conditions (PASC) and urgent or emergent cases. Results: Among a cohort of 29 924 patients, the mean (SD) age was 60.6 (15.6) years; 16 424 (54.9%) were female, and 13 500 (45.1) were male. A total of 14 306 patients had private insurance and 15 618 had Medicare. Patients in highly deprived neighborhoods (5536 patients [18.5%]), with an ADI greater than 85, had lower/worse odds of TO in both the private insurance group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; P = .04) and Medicare group (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00; P = .04) and higher odds of PASC and urgent or emergent cases. The association of ADIs greater than 85 with TO lost significance after adjusting for PASC and urgent/emergent cases. Differences in the probability of TO between the lowest-risk (ADI ≤85, no PASC, and elective surgery) and highest-risk (ADI >85, PASC, and urgent/emergent surgery) scenarios stratified by frailty were highest for very frail patients (Risk Analysis Index ≥40) with differences of 40.2% and 43.1% for those with private insurance and Medicare, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that patients living in highly deprived neighborhoods had lower/worse odds of TO and higher presentation acuity despite having private insurance or Medicare. These findings suggest that insurance coverage expansion alone is insufficient to overcome health care disparities, possibly due to persistent barriers to preventive care and other complex causes of health inequities.

The Limited Utility of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score as a Frailty Assessment Tool in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is an International Classification of Disease 10th Revision-based scale that was originally designed for, and validated in, the assessment of patients 75 years or older presenting in an acute care setting. This study highlights central tenets inherent to the concept of frailty; questions the logic behind, and utility of, HFRS' recent implementation in the neurosurgical literature; and discusses why there is no useful role for HFRS as a frailty-based neurosurgical risk assessment (FBNRA) tool. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of the literature per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including all cranial and spinal studies that used HFRS as their primary frailty tool. Seventeen (N = 17) studies used HFRS to assess frailty's impact on neurosurgical outcomes. Thirteen total journals, 10 of which were neurosurgical journals, including the highest impact factor journals, published the 17 papers. RESULTS: Increasing HFRS score was associated with adverse outcomes, including prolonged length of stay (11 of 17 studies), nonroutine discharge (10 of 17 studies), and increased hospital costs (9 of 17 studies). Four different HFRS studies, of the 17, predicted one of the following 4 adverse outcomes: worse quality of life, worse functional outcomes, reoperation, or in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Despite its rapid acceptance and widespread proliferation through the leading neurosurgical journals, HFRS lacks any conceptual relationship to the frailty syndrome or FBNRA for individual patients. HFRS measures acute conditions using International Classification of Disease 10th Revision codes and awards "frailty" points for symptoms and examination findings unrelated to the impaired baseline physiological reserve inherent to the very definition of frailty. HFRS lacks clinical utility as it cannot be deployed point-of-care at the bedside to risk stratify patients. HFRS has never been validated in any patient population younger than 75 years or in any nonacute care setting. We recommend HFRS be discontinued as an individual FBNRA tool.

A Surgical Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Reveals Complex Relationships Between Race/Ethnicity, Insurance Type, and Neighborhood Deprivation.

OBJECTIVE: Develop an ordinal Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) for surgical outcomes to examine complex associations of Social Determinants of Health. BACKGROUND: Studies focused on single or binary composite outcomes may not detect health disparities. METHODS: Three health care system cohort study using NSQIP (2013-2019) linked with EHR and risk-adjusted for frailty, preoperative acute serious conditions (PASC), case status and operative stress assessing associations of multilevel Social Determinants of Health of race/ethnicity, insurance type (Private 13,957; Medicare 15,198; Medicaid 2835; Uninsured 2963) and Area Deprivation Index (ADI) on DOOR and the binary Textbook Outcomes (TO). RESULTS: Patients living in highly deprived neighborhoods (ADI>85) had higher odds of PASC [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.13, CI=1.02-1.25, P <0.001] and urgent/emergent cases (aOR=1.23, CI=1.16-1.31, P <0.001). Increased odds of higher/less desirable DOOR scores were associated with patients identifying as Black versus White and on Medicare, Medicaid or Uninsured versus Private insurance. Patients with ADI>85 had lower odds of TO (aOR=0.91, CI=0.85-0.97, P =0.006) until adjusting for insurance. In contrast, patients with ADI>85 had increased odds of higher DOOR (aOR=1.07, CI=1.01-1.14, P <0.021) after adjusting for insurance but similar odds after adjusting for PASC and urgent/emergent cases. CONCLUSIONS: DOOR revealed complex interactions between race/ethnicity, insurance type and neighborhood deprivation. ADI>85 was associated with higher odds of worse DOOR outcomes while TO failed to capture the effect of ADI. Our results suggest that presentation acuity is a critical determinant of worse outcomes in patients in highly deprived neighborhoods and without insurance. Including risk adjustment for living in deprived neighborhoods and urgent/emergent surgeries could improve the accuracy of quality metrics.

Independent Associations of Neighborhood Deprivation and Patient-level Social Determinants of Health with Textbook Outcomes after Inpatient Surgery.

Objective: Assess associations of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) using Area Deprivation Index (ADI), race/ethnicity and insurance type with Textbook Outcomes (TO). Summary Background Data: Individual- and contextual-level SDoH affect health outcomes, but only one SDoH level is usually included. Methods: Three healthcare system cohort study using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) linked with ADI risk-adjusted for frailty, case status and operative stress examining TO/TO components (unplanned reoperations, complications, mortality, Emergency Department/Observation Stays and readmissions). Results: Cohort (34,251 cases) mean age 58.3 [SD=16.0], 54.8% females, 14.1% Hispanics, 11.6% Non-Hispanic Blacks, 21.6% with ADI>85, and 81.8% TO. Racial and ethnic minorities, non-Private insurance, and ADI>85 patients had increased odds of urgent/emergent surgeries (aORs range: 1.17-2.83, all P<.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients, ADI>85 and non-Private insurances had lower TO odds (aORs range: 0.55-0.93, all P<.04), but ADI>85 lost significance after including case status. Urgent/emergent versus elective had lower TO odds (aOR=0.51, P<.001). ADI>85 patients had higher complication and mortality odds. Estimated reduction in TO probability was 9.9% (CI=7.2%-12.6%) for urgent/emergent cases, 7.0% (CI=4.6%-9.3%) for Medicaid, and 1.6% (CI=0.2%-3.0%) for non-Hispanic Black patients. TO probability difference for lowest-risk (White-Private-ADI≤85-elective) to highest-risk (Black-Medicaid-ADI>85-urgent/emergent) was 29.8% for very frail patients. Conclusion: Multi-level SDoH had independent effects on TO, predominately affecting outcomes through increased rates/odds of urgent/emergent surgeries driving complications and worse outcomes. Lowest-risk versus highest-risk scenarios demonstrated the magnitude of intersecting SDoH variables. Combination of insurance type and ADI should be used to identify high-risk patients to redesign care pathways to improve outcomes. Risk adjustment including contextual neighborhood deprivation and patient-level SDoH could reduce unintended consequences of value-based programs.

Differentiating Urgent from Elective Cases Matters in Minority Populations: Developing an Ordinal "Desirability of Outcome Ranking" to Increase Granularity and Sensitivity of Surgical Outcomes Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Surgical analyses often focus on single or binary outcomes; we developed an ordinal Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) for surgery to increase granularity and sensitivity of surgical outcome assessments. Many studies also combine elective and urgent procedures for risk adjustment. We used DOOR to examine complex associations of race/ethnicity and presentation acuity. STUDY DESIGN: NSQIP (2013 to 2019) cohort study assessing DOOR outcomes across race/ethnicity groups risk-adjusted for frailty, operative stress, preoperative acute serious conditions, and elective, urgent, and emergent cases. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,597,199 elective, 340,350 urgent, and 185,073 emergent cases with patient mean age of 60.0 ± 15.8, and 56.4% of the surgeries were performed on female patients. Minority race/ethnicity groups had increased odds of presenting with preoperative acute serious conditions (adjusted odds ratio [aORs] range 1.22 to 1.74), urgent (aOR range 1.04 to 2.21), and emergent (aOR range 1.15 to 2.18) surgeries vs the White group. Black (aOR range 1.23 to 1.34) and Native (aOR range 1.07 to 1.17) groups had increased odds of higher/worse DOOR outcomes; however, the Hispanic group had increased odds of higher/worse DOOR (aOR 1.11, CI 1.10 to 1.13), but decreased odds (aORs range 0.94 to 0.96) after adjusting for case status; the Asian group had better outcomes vs the White group. DOOR outcomes improved in minority groups when using elective vs elective/urgent cases as the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: NSQIP surgical DOOR is a new method to assess outcomes and reveals a complex interplay between race/ethnicity and presentation acuity. Combining elective and urgent cases in risk adjustment may penalize hospitals serving a higher proportion of minority populations. DOOR can be used to improve detection of health disparities and serves as a roadmap for the development of other ordinal surgical outcomes measures. Improving surgical outcomes should focus on decreasing preoperative acute serious conditions and urgent and emergent surgeries, possibly by improving access to care, especially for minority populations.

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.

The Correlation Between Case Total Work Relative Value Unit, Operative Stress, and Patient Frailty: Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the relationships between case total work relative value units (wRVU), patient frailty, and the physiologic stress of surgical interventions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgeon reimbursement is frequently apportioned by wRVU. These subjective, procedure-specific valuations generated by physician survey estimate the intensity and time for typical patient care services. We hypothesized wRVU would not adequately account for patient-specific factors, such as frailty, that modify the required physician work, regardless of procedural complexity. METHODS: Using National and Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Programs (2015-2018), we evaluated the correlation between case total wRVU, patient frailty (risk analysis index) and physiologic surgical stress (operative stress score). RESULTS: Of 4,111,371 (86%) cases, the correlation between total wRVU and operative stress was moderate [ρs = 0.587 (95% confidence interval, 0.586-0.587)], but negligible with frailty ρ = 0.177 (95% confidence interval, 0.176-0.178)]. Very high operative stress procedures [n = 34,047 (1%)] generated a mean total wRVU of 55.1 (standard deviation, 12.9), comprising 7%, 2%, and 1% of thoracic, vascular, and general surgical cases, respectively. Very frail patients [n = 152,535 (4%)] accounted for 9% of thoracic, 9% of vascular, 4% of general, 5% of urologic, and 4% of neurologic surgical cases, generating 21.0 (standard deviation, 12.4) mean total wRVU. Some nonfrail patients undergoing low operative stress procedures [n = 60,128 (2%)] nonetheless generated the highest quintile wRVU; these comprised >15% of plastic, gynecologic, and urologic surgical cases. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon reimbursement correlates with operative stress but not patient frailty. The total wRVU does not adequately reflect patient-specific factors that increase the physician workload required to render optimal care to complex patients.

Source of Post-Transplant Care and Mortality among Kidney Transplant Recipients Dually Enrolled in VA and Medicare.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many kidney transplant recipients enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration are also enrolled in Medicare and eligible to receive both Veterans Health Administration and private sector care. Where these patients receive transplant care and its association with mortality are unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of veterans who underwent kidney transplantation between 2008 and 2016 and were dually enrolled in Veterans Health Administration and Medicare at the time of surgery. We categorized patients on the basis of the source of transplant-related care (i.e., outpatient transplant visits, immunosuppressive medication prescriptions, calcineurin inhibitor measurements) delivered during the first year after transplantation defined as Veterans Health Administration only, Medicare only (i.e., outside Veterans Health Administration using Medicare), or dual care (mixed use of Veterans Health Administration and Medicare). Using multivariable Cox regression, we examined the independent association of post-transplant care source with mortality at 5 years after kidney transplantation. RESULTS: Among 6206 dually enrolled veterans, 975 (16%) underwent transplantation at a Veterans Health Administration hospital and 5231 (84%) at a non-Veterans Health Administration hospital using Medicare. Post-transplant care was received by 752 patients (12%) through Veterans Health Administration only, 2092 (34%) through Medicare only, and 3362 (54%) through dual care. Compared with patients who were Veterans Health Administration only, 5-year mortality was significantly higher among patients who were Medicare only (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.1) and patients who were dual care (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Most dually enrolled veterans underwent transplantation at a non-Veterans Health Administration transplant center using Medicare, yet many relied on Veterans Health Administration for some or all of their post-transplant care. Veterans who received Veterans Health Administration-only post-transplant care had the lowest 5-year mortality.

Integrating Patient Priorities with Science by Community Engagement in the Kidney Precision Medicine Project.

The Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP) is a multisite study designed to improve understanding of CKD attributed to diabetes or hypertension and AKI by performing protocol-driven kidney biopsies. Study participants and their kidney tissue samples undergo state-of-the-art deep phenotyping using advanced molecular, imaging, and data analytical methods. Few patients participate in research design or concepts for discovery science. A major goal of the KPMP is to include patients as equal partners to inform the research for clinically relevant benefit. The purpose of this report is to describe patient and community engagement and the value they bring to the KPMP. Patients with CKD and AKI and clinicians from the study sites are members of the Community Engagement Committee, with representation on other KPMP committees. They participate in KPMP deliberations to address scientific, clinical, logistic, analytic, ethical, and community engagement issues. The Community Engagement Committee guides KPMP research priorities from perspectives of patients and clinicians. Patients led development of essential study components, including the informed consent process, no-fault harm insurance coverage, the ethics statement, return of results plan, a "Patient Primer" for scientists and the public, and Community Advisory Boards. As members across other KPMP committees, the Community Engagement Committee assures that the science is developed and conducted in a manner relevant to study participants and the clinical community. Patients have guided the KPMP to produce research aligned with their priorities. The Community Engagement Committee partnership has set new benchmarks for patient leadership in precision medicine research.

Validation of the Risk Analysis Index for Evaluating Frailty in Ambulatory Patients.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a marker of dependency, disability, hospitalization, and mortality in community-dwelling older adults. However, existing tools for measuring frailty are too cumbersome for rapid point-of-care assessment. The Risk Analysis Index (RAI) of frailty is validated in surgical populations, but its performance outside surgical populations is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Validate the RAI in ambulatory patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of outpatient surgical clinics within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Healthcare System between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Frailty was assessed using the RAI. Current Procedural Terminology codes following RAI assessment identified patients with and without minor office-based procedures (eg, joint injection, laryngoscopy). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All-cause 1-year mortality, assessed by stratified Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Of 28,059 patients, 13,861 were matched to a minor, office-based procedure and 14,198 did not undergo any procedure. The mean (SD) age was 56.7 (17.2) years; women constituted 15,797 (56.3%) of the cohort. Median time (interquartile range 25th-75th percentile) to measure RAI was 30 (22-47) seconds. Mortality among the frail was two to five times that of patients with normal RAI scores. For example, the hazard ratio for frail ambulatory patients without a minor procedure was 3.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.51-5.41), corresponding to 30-, 180-, and 365-day mortality rates of 2.9%, 11.2%, and 17.4%, respectively, compared to 0.3%, 2.3%, and 4.0% among patients with normal RAI scores. Discrimination of mortality (overall, and censored at 30, 180, and 365 days) was excellent, ranging from c = 0.838 (95% CI = 0.773-0.902) for 30-day mortality after minor procedures to c = 0.909 (95% CI = 0.855-0.964) without a procedure. CONCLUSION: RAI is a valid, easily administered tool for point-of-care frailty assessment in ambulatory populations that may help clinicians and patients make better informed decisions about care choices-especially among patients considered high risk with a potentially limited life span. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1818-1824, 2020.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frailty Assessment in Older Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In perioperative settings, frailty assessment has been shown to reduce mortality. This study examined the cost effectiveness of frailty assessment among patients aged 65 with coronary artery disease under consideration for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. METHODS: A combined decision tree and Markov model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 21-year time horizon. Clinical parameters were obtained from published literature. Utilities were derived from the literature and the Canadian Community Health Survey. Costs were obtained from the Ontario fee schedule and published literature. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis was conducted to estimate the value of further research. RESULTS: The frailty assessment initiative had a lower average cost than no frailty assessment ($19,567 compared with $20,062). QALYs with frailty assessment were 0.47 years more than with no frailty assessment. Thus, frailty assessment was dominant compared with no frailty assessment. Results were robust to changes in the input parameters. At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, there was 100% probability of frailty assessment being cost-effective, and the EVPI per patient was $0. Scenario and sensitivity analysis showed frailty screening remained cost effective when changing the cohort average age, removing health benefits for nonfrail patients, and using subjective judgement to modify effectiveness parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty assessment may be good value for money. However, limited availability of geriatric consultation services, may hinder implementation. Thus, the estimated benefits of frailty screening may not be achievable in practice.

Assessment of the Risk Analysis Index for Prediction of Mortality, Major Complications, and Length of Stay in Patients who Underwent Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a risk factor for adverse postoperative outcomes. We aimed to test the performance of a prospectively validated frailty measure, the Risk Analysis Index (RAI) in patients who underwent vascular surgery and delineate the additive impact of procedure complexity on surgical outcomes. METHODS: We queried the 2007-2013 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify 6 major elective vascular procedure categories (carotid revascularization, abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA] repair, suprainguinal revascularization, infrainguinal revascularization, thoracic aortic aneurysm [TAA] repair, and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm [TAAA] repair). We trained and tested logistic regression models for 30-day mortality, major complications, and prolonged length of stay (LOS). The first model, "RAI," used the RAI alone; "RAI-Procedure (RAI-P)" included procedure category (e.g., AAA repair) and procedure approach (e.g., endovascular); "RAI-Procedure Complexity (RAI-PC)" added outpatient versus inpatient surgery, general anesthesia use, work relative value units (RVUs), and operative time. RESULTS: The RAI model was a good predictor of mortality for vascular procedures overall (C-statistic: 0.72). The C-statistic increased with the RAI-P (0.78), which further improved minimally, with the RAI-PC (0.79). When stratified by procedure category, the RAI predicted mortality well for infrainguinal (0.79) and suprainguinal (0.74) procedures, moderately well for AAA repairs (0.69) and carotid revascularizations (0.70), and poorly for TAAs (0.62) and TAAAs (0.54). For carotid, infrainguinal, and suprainguinal procedures, procedure complexity (RAI-PC) had little impact on model discrimination for mortality, did improve discrimination for AAAs (0.84), TAAs (0.73), and TAAAs (0.80). Although the RAI model was not a good predictor for major complications or LOS, discrimination improved for both with the RAI-PC model. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty as measured by the RAI was a good predictor of mortality overall after vascular surgery procedures. Although the RAI was not a strong predictor of major complications or prolonged LOS, the models improved with the addition of procedure characteristics like procedure category and approach.

Recalibration and External Validation of the Risk Analysis Index: A Surgical Frailty Assessment Tool.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: The Risk Analysis Index (RAI) predicts 30-, 180-, and 365-day mortality based on variables constitutive of frailty. Initially validated, in a single-center Veteran hospital, we sought to improve model performance by recalibrating the RAI in a large, veteran surgical registry, and to externally validate it in both a national surgical registry and a cohort of surgical patients for whom RAI was measured prospectively before surgery. METHODS: The RAI was recalibrated among development and confirmation samples within the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP; 2010-2014; N = 480,731) including major, elective noncardiac surgery patients to create the revised RAI (RAI-rev), comparing discrimination and calibration. The model was tested externally in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset (NSQIP; 2005-2014; N = 1,391,785), and in a prospectively collected cohort from the Nebraska Western Iowa Health Care System VA (NWIHCS; N = 6,856). RESULTS: Recalibrating the RAI significantly improved discrimination for 30-day [c = 0.84-0.86], 180-day [c = 0.81-0.84], and 365-day mortality [c = 0.78-0.82] (P < 0.001 for all) in VASQIP. The RAI-rev also had markedly better calibration (median absolute difference between observed and predicted 180-day mortality: decreased from 8.45% to 1.23%). RAI-rev was highly predictive of 30-day mortality (c = 0.87) in external validation with excellent calibration (median absolute difference between observed and predicted 30-day mortality: 0.6%). The discrimination was highly robust in men (c = 0.85) and women (c = 0.89). Discrimination also improved in the prospectively measured cohort from NWIHCS for 180-day mortality [c = 0.77 to 0.80] (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The RAI-rev has improved discrimination and calibration as a frailty-screening tool in surgical patients. It has robust external validity in men and women across a wide range of surgical settings and available for immediate implementation for risk assessment and counseling in preoperative patients.

Association of a Frailty Screening Initiative With Postoperative Survival at 30, 180, and 365 Days.

Importance: As the US population ages, the number of operations performed on elderly patients will likely increase. Frailty predicts postoperative mortality and morbidity more than age alone, thus presenting opportunities to identify the highest-risk surgical patients and improve their outcomes. Objective: To examine the effect of the Frailty Screening Initiative (FSI) on mortality and complications by comparing the surgical outcomes of a cohort of surgical patients treated before and after implementation of the FSI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-site, facility-wide, prospective cohort quality improvement project studied all 9153 patients from a level 1b Veterans Affairs medical center who presented for major, elective, noncardiac surgery from October 1, 2007, to July 1, 2014. Interventions: Assessment of preoperative frailty in all patients scheduled for elective surgery began in July 2011. Frailty was assessed with the Risk Analysis Index (RAI), and the records of all frail patients (RAI score, ≥21) were flagged for administrative review by the chief of surgery (or designee) before the scheduled operation. On the basis of this review, clinicians from surgery, anesthesia, critical care, and palliative care were notified of the patient's frailty and associated surgical risks; if indicated, perioperative plans were modified based on team input. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative mortality at 30, 180, and 365 days. Results: From October 1, 2007, to July 1, 2014, a total of 9153 patients underwent surgery (mean [SD] age, 60.3 [13.5] years; female, 653 [7.1%]; and white, 7096 [79.8%]). Overall 30-day mortality decreased from 1.6% (84 of 5275 patients) to 0.7% (26 of 3878 patients, P < .001) after FSI implementation. Improvement was greatest among frail patients (12.2% [24 of 197 patients] to 3.8% [16 of 424 patients], P < .001), although mortality rates also decreased among the robust patients (1.2% [60 of 5078 patients] to 0.3% [10 of 3454 patients], P < .001). The magnitude of improvement among frail patients increased at 180 (23.9% [47 of 197 patients] to 7.7% [30 of 389 patients], P < .001) and 365 days (34.5% [68 of 197 patients] to 11.7% [36 of 309 patients], P < .001). Multivariable models revealed improved survival after FSI implementation, controlling for age, frailty, and predicted mortality (adjusted odds ratio for 180-day survival, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.98-4.16). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of the FSI was associated with reduced mortality, suggesting the feasibility of widespread screening of patients preoperatively to identify frailty and the efficacy of system-level initiatives aimed at improving their surgical outcomes. Additional investigation is required to establish a causal connection.

Development and Initial Validation of the Risk Analysis Index for Measuring Frailty in Surgical Populations.

Importance: Growing consensus suggests that frailty-associated risks should inform shared surgical decision making. However, it is not clear how best to screen for frailty in preoperative surgical populations. Objective: To develop and validate the Risk Analysis Index (RAI), a 14-item instrument used to measure surgical frailty. It can be calculated prospectively (RAI-C), using a clinical questionnaire, or retrospectively (RAI-A), using variables from the surgical quality improvement databases (Veterans Affairs or American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects). Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-site, prospective cohort from July 2011 to September 2015 at the Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Heath Care System, a Level 1b Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The study included all patients presenting to the medical center for elective surgery. Exposures: We assessed the RAI-C for all patients scheduled for surgery, linking these scores to administrative and quality improvement data to calculate the RAI-A and the modified Frailty Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receiver operator characteristics and C statistics for each measure predicting postoperative mortality and morbidity. Results: Of the participants, the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (13.9) years and 249 participants (3.6%) were women. We assessed the RAI-C 10 698 times, from which we linked 6856 unique patients to mortality data. The C statistic predicting 180-day mortality for the RAI-C was 0.772. Of these 6856 unique patients, we linked 2785 to local Veterans Affairs Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects data and calculated the C statistic for both the RAI-A (0.823) and RAI-C (0.824), along with the correlation between the 2 scores (r = 0.478; P < .001). Of these 2785 patients, there were sufficient data to calculate the modified Frailty Index for 1021, in which the C statistics were 0.865 (RAI-A), 0.797 (RAI-C), and 0.811 (modified Frailty Index). The correlation between the RAI-A and RAI-C was 0.547, and the correlations of the modified Frailty Index to the RAI-A and RAI-C were 0.301 and 0.269, respectively (all P < .001). A cutoff of RAI-C of at least 21 classified 18.3% patients as "frail" with a sensitivity of 0.50 and specificity of 0.82, whereas the RAI-A was less sensitive (0.25) and more specific (0.97), classifying only 3.7% as "frail." Conclusions and Relevance: The RAI-C and RAI-A represent effective tools for measuring frailty in surgical populations with predictive ability on par with other frailty tools. Moderate correlation between the measures suggests convergent validity. The RAI-C offers the advantage of prospective, preoperative assessment that is proved feasible for large-scale screening in clinical practice. However, further efforts should be directed at determining the optimal components of preoperative frailty assessment.

Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool to Guide Quality Improvement.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are intended to protect those who participate in research. However, because there is no established measure of IRB quality, it is unclear whether these committees achieve their goal. The IRB Researcher Assessment Tool is a previously validated, internally normed, proxy measure of IRB quality that assesses 45 distinct IRB activities and functions. We administered this instrument to a sample of investigators and IRB members at a large urban VA Medical Center. We describe a systematic approach to analyze and interpret survey responses that can identify the IRB activities and functions most in need of quality improvement. The proposed approach to empirical data analysis and presentation could inform local initiatives to improve the quality of IRB review.

Religious attendance: more cost-effective than lipitor?

BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis demonstrates a robust but small association between weekly religious attendance and longer life. However, the practical significance of this finding remains controversial. METHODS: Age specific, actuarial death rates were modified according to published odds ratios to model the additional years of life attributable to: (1) weekly religious attendance; (2) regular physical exercise; and (3) statin-type lipid-lowering agents. Secondary analyses estimated the approximate cost for each additional year of life gained. RESULTS: Weekly attendance at religious services accounts for an additional 2 to 3 life-years compared with 3 to 5 life-years for physical exercise and 2.5 to 3.5 life-years for statin-type agents. The approximate cost per life-year gained was between 2,000 dollars and 6,000 dollars for regular exercise, 3,000 dollars and 10,000 dollars for regular religious attendance, and between 4,000 dollars and 14,000 dollars for statin-type agents. CONCLUSION: The real-world, practical significance of regular religious attendance is comparable to commonly recommended therapies, and rough estimates even suggest that religious attendance may be more cost-effective than statins. Religious attendance is not a mode of medical therapy, but these findings warrant more and better quality research designed to examine the associations between religion and health, and the potential relevance such associations might have for medical practice.