Associations of preoperative anaemia with healthcare resource use and outcomes after colorectal surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia is common in patient undergoing colorectal surgery. Understanding the population-level costs of preoperative anaemia will inform development and evaluation of anaemia management at health system levels. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using linked, routinely collected data, including residents from Ontario, Canada, aged ≥18 yr who underwent an elective colorectal resection between 2012 and 2022. Primary exposure was preoperative anaemia (haemoglobin <130 g L-1 in males; <120 g L-1 in females). Primary outcome was 30-day costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD), from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included red blood cell transfusion, major adverse events (MAEs), length of stay (LOS), days alive at home (DAH), and readmissions. RESULTS: We included 54,286 patients, with mean 65.3 (range 18-102) years of age and 49.0% females, among which 21 264 (39.2%) had preoperative anaemia. There was an absolute adjusted cost increase of $2671 per person at 30 days after surgery attributable to preoperative anaemia (ratio of means [RoM] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.06). Compared with the control group, 30-day risks of transfusion (odds ratio [OR] 4.34, 95% CI 4.04-4.66), MAEs (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27), LOS (RoM 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and readmissions (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24) were higher in the anaemia group, with reduced DAH (RoM 0.95, 95% CI 0.95-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately $2671 CAD per person in 30-day health system costs are attributable to preoperative anaemia after colorectal surgery in Ontario, Canada.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0-150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points). RESULTS: We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4-14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19-0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84-3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93-3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Measuring the Predictive Accuracy of Preoperative Clinical Frailty Instruments Applied to Electronic Health Data in Older Patients Having Emergency General Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare predictive accuracy of frailty instruments operationalizable in electronic data for prognosticating outcomes among older adults undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS). BACKGROUND: Older patients undergoing EGS are at higher risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative frailty is a common and strong perioperative risk factor in this population. Despite this, existing barriers preclude routine preoperative frailty assessment. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults above 65 undergoing EGS from 2012 to 2018 using Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) provincial healthcare data in Ontario, Canada. We compared 4 frailty instruments: Frailty Index (FI), Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), Risk Analysis Index-Administrative (RAI), ACG Frailty-defining diagnoses indicator (ACG). We compared predictive accuracy beyond baseline risk models (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists' score, procedural risk). Predictive performance was measured using discrimination, calibration, explained variance, net reclassification index and Brier score (binary outcomes); using explained variance, root mean squared error and mean absolute prediction error (continuous outcomes). Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 365-day mortality, nonhome discharge, days alive at home, length of stay, and 30-day and 365-day health systems cost. RESULTS: A total of 121,095 EGS patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 11,422 (9.4%) experienced death 30 days postoperatively. Addition of FI, HFRS, and RAI to the baseline model led to improved discrimination, net reclassification index, and R2 ; RAI demonstrated the largest improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Adding 4 frailty instruments to typically assessed preoperative risk factors demonstrated strong predictive performance in accurately prognosticating perioperative outcomes. These findings can be considered in developing automated risk stratification systems among older EGS patients.

Mapping a shared care model in complex gastrointestinal surgery: A qualitative study of queues and stakeholders within a Canadian general surgery practice.

Shared Care Models (SCMs), in which a team of clinicians share in patient care and resource utilization, represent an opportunity for surgeon-level system change. We aimed to identify the queues and stakeholders within a complex gastrointestinal surgical care pathway to demonstrate the implications of a SCM on system efficiency. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and care navigators working in SCMs were asked to develop a patient encounter map through consensus to illustrate relevant queues and stakeholders within a SCM. Fifteen surgeon-related queues were identified, each representing a point of potential delay to care in the patient's journey that could be addressed by shared care. A final patient encounter map was created, and advantages and challenges of SCMs were also described from multidisciplinary group discussions. The numerous queues identified in this map ultimately reflected opportunities for more efficient care navigation under a SCM through increased surgeon availability and shared resource utilization.

Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Elective Bowel Resection Before and After Implementation of an Anemia Screening and Treatment Program.

BACKGROUND: Patients with anemia undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery are known to have significantly higher rates of postoperative complications and worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve rates of anemia screening and treatment in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections through a quality improvement initiative. DESIGN: We compared a historical cohort of patients before implementation of our anemia screening and treatment quality improvement program to a prospective cohort after implementation. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: This study included all adult patients with a new diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer without evidence of metastatic disease between 2017 and 2019. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions include the anemia screening and treatment quality improvement program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hospital cost per admission. RESULTS: This study includes a total of 84 patients who underwent elective colon or rectal resection before implementation of our anemia quality improvement project and 88 patients who underwent surgery after. In the preimplementation cohort 44 of 84 patients (55.9%) were anemic compared to 47 of 99 patients (54.7%) in the postimplementation cohort. Rates of screening (25%-86.4%) and treatment (27.8%- 63.8%) were significantly increased in the postimplementation cohort. Mean total cost per admission was significantly decreased in the postimplementation cohort (mean cost $16,827 vs $25,796; p = 0.004); this significant reduction was observed even after adjusting for relevant confounding factors (ratio of means: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85). The mechanistic link between treatment of anemia and reductions in cost remains unknown. No significant difference was found in rates of blood transfusion, complications, or mortality between the groups. LIMITATIONS: The study limitation includes before-after design subjected to selection and temporal biases. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the successful implementation of an anemia screening and treatment program. This program was associated with significantly reduced cost per admission. This work demonstrates possible value and benefits of implementation of an anemia screening and treatment program. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C15 .RESULTADOS DE LOS PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A RESECCIÓN INTESTINAL ELECTIVA ANTES Y DESPUÉS DE LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN PROGRAMA DE DETECCIÓN Y TRATAMIENTO DE ANEMIA. ANTECEDENTES: Se sabe que los pacientes anémicos que se someten a una cirugía electiva de cáncer colorrectal tienen tasas significativamente más altas de complicaciones posoperatorias y peores resultados. OBJETIVO: Mejorar las tasas de detección y tratamiento de la anemia en pacientes sometidos a resecciones electivas de colon y recto a través de una iniciativa de mejora de calidad. DISEO: Comparamos una cohorte histórica de pacientes antes de la implementación de nuestro programa de detección de anemia y mejora de la calidad del tratamiento con una cohorte prospectiva después de la implementación. ENTORNO CLINICO: Hospital de atención terciaria. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes adultos con un nuevo diagnóstico de cáncer de colon o recto sin evidencia de enfermedad metastásica entre 2017 y 2019. INTERVENCIONES: Detección de anemia y programa de mejora de la calidad del tratamiento. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El resultado primario fue el costo hospitalario por ingreso. RESULTADOS: Un total de 84 pacientes se sometieron a resección electiva de colon o recto antes de la implementación de nuestro proyecto de mejora de calidad de la anemia y 88 pacientes se sometieron a cirugía después. En la cohorte previa a la implementación, 44/84 (55,9 %) presentaban anemia en comparación con 47/99 (54,7 %) en la cohorte posterior a la implementación. Las tasas de detección (25 % a 86,4 %) y tratamiento (27,8 % a 63,8 %) aumentaron significativamente en la cohorte posterior a la implementación. El costo total medio por admisión se redujo significativamente en la cohorte posterior a la implementación (costo medio $16 827 vs. $25 796, p = 0,004); esta reducción significativa se observó incluso después de ajustar los factores de confusión relevantes (proporción de medias: 0,74, IC del 95 %: 0,65 a 0,85). El vínculo mecánico entre el tratamiento de la anemia y la reducción de costos sigue siendo desconocido. No hubo diferencias significativas en las tasas de transfusión de sangre, complicaciones o mortalidad entre los grupos. LIMITACIONES: El diseño de antes y después está sujeto a sesgos temporales y de selección. CONCLUSIONES: Demostramos la implementación exitosa de un programa de detección y tratamiento de anemia. Este programa se asoció con un costo por admisión significativamente reducido. Este trabajo demuestra el valor y los beneficios posibles de la implementación de un programa de detección y tratamiento de la anemia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C15 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Derivation and external validation of a 30-day mortality risk prediction model for older patients having emergency general surgery.

BACKGROUND: Older people (≥65 yr) are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality after emergency general surgery. Risk prediction models are needed to guide decision making in this high-risk population. Existing models have substantial limitations and lack external validation, potentially limiting their applicability in clinical use. We aimed to derive and validate, both internally and externally, a multivariable model to predict 30-day mortality risk in older patients undergoing emergency general surgery. METHODS: After protocol publication, we used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2012-6; estimated to contain 90% data from the USA and 10% from Canada) to derive and internally validate a model to predict 30-day mortality for older people having emergency general surgery using logistic regression with elastic net regularisation. Internal validation was done with 10-fold cross-validation. External validation was done using a temporally separate health administrative database exclusively from Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Overall, 6012 (12.0%) of the 50 221 patients died within 30 days. The model demonstrated strong discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]=0.871) and calibration across the spectrum of observed and predicted risks. Ten-fold internal cross-validation demonstrated minimal optimism (AUC=0.851, optimism 0.019 [standard deviation=0.06]) with excellent calibration. External validation demonstrated lower discrimination (AUC=0.700) and degraded calibration. CONCLUSION: A multivariable mortality risk prediction model was strongly discriminative and well calibrated internally. However, poor external validation suggests the model may not be generalisable to non-NSQIP data and hospitals. The findings highlight the importance of external validation before clinical application of risk models.

Comparing the predictive accuracy of frailty instruments applied to preoperative electronic health data for adults undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative frailty is associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality and complications. Routine preoperative frailty assessment is underperformed. Automation of preoperative frailty assessment using electronic health data could improve adherence to guideline-based care if an accurate instrument is identified. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults >65 yr undergoing elective noncardiac surgery between 2012 and 2018. Four frailty instruments were compared: Frailty Index, Hospital Frailty Risk Score, Risk Analysis Index-Administrative, and Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. We compared the predictive performance of each instrument added to a baseline model (age, sex, ASA physical status, and procedural risk) using discrimination, calibration, explained variance, net reclassification, and Brier score (binary outcomes); and explained variance, root mean squared error, and mean absolute prediction error (continuous outcomes). Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 365-day mortality, length of stay, non-home discharge, days alive at home, and 365-day costs. RESULTS: For this study, 171 576 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1370 (0.8%) died within 30 days. Compared with the baseline model predicting 30-day mortality (area under the curve [AUC] 0.85; R2 0.08), the addition of Hospital Frailty Risk Score led to the greatest improvement in discrimination (AUC 0.87), explained variance (R2 0.09), and net reclassification (Net Reclassification Index 0.65). Brier and calibration scores were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: All four frailty instruments significantly improved discrimination and risk reclassification when added to typically assessed preoperative risk factors. Accurate identification of the presence or absence of preoperative frailty using electronic frailty instruments may improve perioperative risk stratification. Future research should evaluate the impact of automated frailty assessment in guiding surgical planning and patient-centred optimisation amongst older surgical patients.

Association between frailty and patient outcomes after cancer surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with poor postoperative outcomes, but existing data do not describe frailty's interaction with tumour characteristics at the time of cancer surgery. Our objective was to estimate the association between frailty and long-term survival, and to explore any interaction with tumour stage and grade. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study conducted using linked provincial health administrative data in Ontario, Canada (2009-20). Using a cancer registry, we identified adults having elective cancer surgery. Frailty was measured using a validated index (range 0-1; higher score=greater frailty). Associations between frailty and long-term postoperative survival (primary outcome) were estimated using proportional hazards regression. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, discharge destination, days alive at home, and healthcare costs. RESULTS: We identified and included 52 012 patients. Mean frailty score was 0.13 (standard deviation 0.07). During follow-up, 19 378 (37.3%) patients died. After adjustment for risk factors, each 10% increase in frailty was associated with a 1.60-fold relative decrease in survival (95% confidence interval: 1.56-1.64). The frailty-survival association was strongest for patients with lower stage and grade cancers. Increased frailty was associated with longer hospital stays (3 days), fewer days alive and at home (42 days yr-1), more frequent discharge to a nursing facility (2.38-fold), and increased healthcare costs ($6048). CONCLUSIONS: Patient frailty is associated with decreased long-term survival after cancer surgery. The association is stronger for early-stage and -grade cancers, which would otherwise have a better survival prognosis.

Home-based prehabilitation with exercise to improve postoperative recovery for older adults with frailty having cancer surgery: the PREHAB randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability as a result of decreased reserves. Prehabilitation may increase reserve and improve postoperative outcomes. Our objective was to determine if home-based prehabilitation improves postoperative functional recovery in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. METHODS: This double blind randomised trial enrolled people ≥60 yr having elective cancer surgery and ≥3 weeks from enrolment to surgery as eligible. Participation in a remotely supported, home-based exercise prehabilitation program plus nutritional guidance was compared with standard care plus written advice on age-appropriate activity and nutrition. The primary outcome was 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance at the first postoperative clinic visit. Secondary outcomes included physical performance, quality of life, disability, length of stay, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Of 543 patients assessed, 254 were eligible and 204 (80%) were randomised (102 per arm); 182 (94 intervention and 88 control) had surgery and were analysed. Mean age was 74 yr and 57% were female. Mean duration of participation was 5 weeks, mean adherence was 61% (range 0%-100%). We found no significant difference in 6MWT at follow-up (+14 m, 95% confidence interval -26-55 m, P=0.486), or for secondary outcomes. Analyses using a prespecified adherence definition of ≥80% supported improvements in 6MWT distance, complication count, and disability. CONCLUSIONS: A home-based prehabilitation program did not significantly improve postoperative recovery or other outcomes in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. Program adherence may be a key mediator of prehabilitation efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02934230.

Development and evaluation of an evidence-based, theory-grounded online Clinical Frailty Scale tutorial.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a robust predictor of adverse outcomes in older people. Practice guidelines recommend routine screening for frailty; however, this does not occur regularly. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a validated, feasible instrument that can be used in a variety of clinical settings and is associated with many adverse outcomes. Our objective was to develop and evaluate an online training module to guide frailty assessment using the CFS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of clinical experts developed an evidence-based, theory-grounded online training module for users who wished to perform frailty assessment using the CFS. The module was prospectively evaluated for user satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility using a standardised questionnaire. Qualitative feedback was analysed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Version 1 of the CFS module was used 627 times from 21 October 2019 to 24 March 2020. Satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility of the module were positively rated (≥4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale n = 582 [93%], n = 507, [81%], n = 575, [91%], respectively). Qualitative feedback highlighted ease of use, likelihood of users to share the module with others and opportunities to increase multimedia content. CONCLUSION: An online tutorial, designed using evidence and theory to guide frailty assessment using the CFS, was positively rated by users. The module's content and structure was rated effective and feasible, and users were satisfied with, and likely to share, the module. Research evaluating the module's impact on the accuracy of frailty assessment is required.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to routine preoperative frailty assessment: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: Preoperative frailty assessment is recommended by multiple practice guidelines and may improve outcomes, but it is not routinely performed. The barriers and facilitators of routine preoperative frailty assessment have not been formally assessed. Our objective was to perform a theory-guided evaluation of barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment. METHODS: This was a research ethics board-approved qualitative study involving physicians who perform preoperative assessment (consultant and resident anesthesiologists and consultant surgeons). Semistructured interviews were conducted by a trained research assistant informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to frailty assessment. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two research assistants to identify specific beliefs relevant to each theoretical domain. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 clinicians (nine consultant anesthesiologists, nine consultant surgeons, and ten anesthesiology residents). Six domains (Knowledge [100%], Social Influences [96%], Social Professional Role and Identity [96%], Beliefs about Capabilities [93%], Goals [93%], and Intentions [93%]) were identified by > 90% of respondents. The most common barriers identified were prioritization of other aspects of assessment (e.g., cardio/respiratory) and a lack of awareness of evidence and guidelines supporting frailty assessment. The most common facilitators were a high degree of familiarity with frailty, recognition of the importance of frailty assessment, and strong intentions to perform frailty assessment. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment are multidimensional, but generally consistent across different types of perioperative physicians. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators can guide development of evidence-based strategies to increase frailty assessment.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité est recommandée par plusieurs lignes directrices de pratique et pourrait améliorer les devenirs, mais elle n'est pas systématiquement réalisée. Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation de routine de la fragilité préopératoire n'ont pas été officiellement évalués. Notre objectif était de mener une évaluation théorique des obstacles et des facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité. MéTHODE: Il s'agissait d'une étude qualitative approuvée par le comité d'éthique de la recherche impliquant des médecins menant des évaluations préopératoires (anesthésiologistes, résidents en anesthésiologie et chirurgiens). Des entrevues semi-structurées ont été réalisées par un assistant de recherche formé en se fondant sur le Cadre des domaines théoriques afin d'identifier les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les transcriptions des entrevues ont été codées de manière indépendante par deux assistants de recherche afin d'identifier les croyances spécifiques pertinentes à chaque domaine théorique. RéSULTATS: Nous avons interrogé 28 cliniciens (neuf anesthésiologistes, neuf chirurgiens et dix résidents en anesthésiologie). Six domaines (Connaissances [100 %], Influences sociales [96 %], Rôle et identité socio-professionnels [96 %], Croyances concernant les capacités [93 %], Objectifs [93 %] et Intentions [93 %]) ont été identifiés par > 90 % des répondants. Les obstacles les plus fréquemment cités étaient la priorisation accordée à d'autres aspects de l'évaluation (p. ex., cardio/respiratoire) et le manque de connaissances des données probantes et des lignes directrices à l'appui de l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les facilitateurs les plus courants étaient un degré élevé de familiarité avec la fragilité, la reconnaissance de l'importance de l'évaluation de la fragilité et de fortes intentions de réaliser une évaluation de la fragilité. CONCLUSION: Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité sont multidimensionnels, mais généralement uniformes parmi les différents types de médecins périopératoires. La connaissance des obstacles et des facilitateurs peut guider l'élaboration de stratégies fondées sur des données probantes pour augmenter l'évaluation de la fragilité.

Pan-Canadian colorectal cancer surgery data: an opportunity for reflection and improvement.

Variation in data provides an opportunity for health care providers to assess how patient care can be improved. Pan-Canadian colorectal cancer data show that, although long-term survival is similar among provinces, differences exist in other important aspects of care: length of stay, minimally invasive approach, readmission, and short-term mortality. Examining variation among stakeholders involved with colorectal cancer allows the opportunity to reflect on and optimize care.

Preoperative stoma site marking for fecal diversions (ileostomy and colostomy): position statement of the Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Nurses Specialized in Wound, Ostomy and Continence Canada.

BACKGROUND: Every year, about 13 000 Canadians undergo an ostomy procedure, which requires stoma site marking to create a well-constructed stoma and prevent stoma-related complications. The Canadian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (CSCRS) and Nurses Specialized in Wound, Ostomy and Continence Canada (NSWOCC) created a position statement to provide evidence-based guidance and techniques for stoma site selection. METHODS: A task force was formed comprising 20 health care professionals (7 colorectal surgeons from the CSCRS and 13 nurses from NSWOCC) with representation from across Canada. A literature review was performed, with the following databases searched from January 2009 to April 2019: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar. After the abstracts were screened, 6 task force members created a draft version of the position statement from the articles retained after full-text review. The draft was submitted to the entire task force for comments, and the ensuing modifications were incorporated. Peer reviewers were then recruited from the CSCRS and NSWOCC; a summary of their comments was reviewed by the task force, and modifications were incorporated to produce the final document. RESULTS: The literature search identified 272 papers, of which 58 were reviewed after duplicates were excluded. After full-text review, 18 papers were included to guide the position statement. From these papers, we created a series of 17 steps for stoma site marking. Four general principles were found to be important for stoma site marking: obtain informed consent, identify important patient factors and landmarks, assess the abdomen and mark the most appropriate location. A 1-page enabler document and video were created as teaching aids and to help with dissemination of the information. CONCLUSION: This position statement, associated enabler document and video provide evidence-based guidance for stoma site marking in both emergency and elective settings, and should be used by surgeons and nurses specialized in wound, ostomy and continence to identify optimal stoma sites preoperatively.

Leveraging financial incentives and behavioural economics to engage physicians in achieving quality-improvement process measures.

BACKGROUND: Dedicated quality-improvement (QI) initiatives within health care systems are of clear benefit, and physicians respond to financial incentivization. The Canadian health care system often lacks this lever, and many financially incentivized QI programs rely on traditional economic principles. We describe our evaluation of financial incentivization for the implementation of QI process metrics in a department of surgery at a Canadian academic hospital system and its impact over a 4-year period. METHODS: Quality-improvement processes informed by extant QI incentivization literature and guided by the principles of behavioural economics were implemented within our institution's Department of Surgery. Disbursement of supplemental government funding was modified to be contingent on the ability of divisions within the department to meet predefined QI metrics, including regular multidisciplinary meetings, morbidity and mortality rounds with documented feedback of systemic issues to division members, reviews of adverse events, and implementation of annual patient experience projects. We evaluated the effect of the QI processes from 2015/16 to 2018/19. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the number of divisions that satisfied all the QI metrics over the study period, from 2 (28%) in 2015/16, to 5 (71%) in 2016/17, to 7 (100.0%) in 2017/18 and 2018/19 (p < 0.01). The application of behavioural economics principles, such as reward versus penalty payoff, loss aversion, payment separation, aligning of values, and relative social ranking, was important to the outcome of the study. CONCLUSION: Incentivizing QI activities in the Canadian health care system is possible and led to improvement in QI processes as a whole in our department. This paper lays out a method of financial reimbursement to facilitate engagement of physicians and establishment of a foundation of important QI processes and measures within a department.

Implementation, results and face validity of the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure in a Canadian department of surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, a validated questionnaire designed to assess patients' perceptions of their physician's communication skills and empathy, has been used to assess empathy in medical specialties but has seldom been applied to surgery. We assessed empathy and communication skills among a group of surgeons within a single academic institution. METHODS: All surgeons within our department of surgery were invited to participate. Patients seen in clinics of participating surgeons were recruited prospectively from July 2018 to February 2019. At the end of each clinical encounter, they were asked to complete a CARE survey. Surveys were analyzed according to previously validated inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated mean scores for each surgeon and surgical division. About 6 months after study completion, surgeons were provided with their individual score and de-identified division scores, and were asked to complete a follow-up survey assessing their attitudes toward the CARE Measure. RESULTS: Of the 82 surgeons invited, 51 (62%) agreed to participate; 7 had fewer than 25 completed surveys and were excluded from analysis. A total of 1801 surveys for 44 surgeons (33 male and 11 female) were included in the final analysis. The average CARE score across the department was 46.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6-47.1). Female surgeons received significantly higher scores than male surgeons (mean 47.6 [95% CI 47.1-48.0] v. 46.7 [95% CI 46.4-48.0]). Of the 35 surgeons who responded to the follow-up survey, 31 (89%) felt that the questions in the CARE Measure applied to their practice, and half of these reported that they intended to make changes in response to the feedback. CONCLUSION: We found high communication and empathy scores among surgeons in the outpatient setting, with enough variability to encourage continued improvement. The CARE Measure appears to have face validity among surgeons, and the vast majority found it relevant to their practice. Further study is needed to formally assess the relevance, performance, reliability and construct validity of this measure.

Long-term Health Outcomes and Health System Costs Associated With Surgical Site Infections: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between surgical site infections (SSIs) and hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality, and to estimate the attributable health care costs of SSIs 1 year following surgery. BACKGROUND: SSIs are a common postoperative complication; the long-term impact of SSI on health outcomes and costs has not been formally evaluated. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all adult patients who underwent surgery at the 1202-bed teaching hospital in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and were included in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database between 2010 and 2015. The study exposure was postoperative SSI. The study outcomes included hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and health care costs at 1 year (primary) and at 30 days and 90 days (secondary) following surgery. RESULTS: We identified 14,351 patients, including 795 patients with SSIs. Our multivariable analyses that accounted for competing risks demonstrated that at 1-year following the index date, superficial and deep/organ space SSIs were significantly associated with an increase in hospital readmission [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.63, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.39-1.92 and HR = 3.49, (95% CI 2.76-4.17, respectively) and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.10-1.98 and HR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.44-2.78, respectively]. At 1 year after surgery, patients with superficial and deep/organ space SSIs incurred higher health care costs C$20,648 (95% CI) C$16,980- C$24,112and C$53,075 (95% CI) C$44,628- C$60,936), than non-SSI patients. CONCLUSION: SSIs, especially deep/organ space SSI, contribute to adverse health outcomes and health care costs across the entire year after surgery. Our findings highlight the importance of effective prevention/monitoring strategies targeting both short- and long-term consequences of SSI.

Clinical practice guideline: evidence, recommendations and algorithm for the preoperative optimization of anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking.

Preoperative optimization has not been explored comprehensively in the surgical literature, as this responsibility has often been divided among surgery, anesthesia and medicine. We developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to summarize existing evidence and present diagnostic and treatment algorithms for use by surgeons caring for patients scheduled to undergo major elective surgery. We focus on 3 common comorbid conditions seen across surgical specialties - anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking - as these conditions increase complication rates in patients undergoing major surgery and can be optimized successfully as soon as 6-8 weeks before surgery. With the ability to address these conditions earlier in the patient journey, surgeons can positively affect patient outcomes. The aim of this guideline is to bring optimization in the preoperative period under the existing umbrella of evidence-based surgical care.

Implementation of a systematic tobacco treatment protocol in a surgical outpatient setting: a feasibility study.

Background: Smoking cessation programs started as late as 4 weeks before surgery reduce perioperative morbidity and death, yet outpatient clinic interventions are rarely provided. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a tobacco treatment protocol designed for an outpatient surgical setting. Methods: We completed a pre-post feasibility study of the implementation of a systematic, evidence-based tobacco treatment protocol in an outpatient colorectal surgery clinic. Outcomes included smoking prevalence, pre- and postimplementation smoker identification and intervention rates, recruitment, retention, smoking cessation and provider satisfaction. Results: Preimplementation, 15.5% of 116 surveyed patients were smokers. Fewer than 10% of surveyed patients reported being asked about smoking, and none were offered any cessation intervention. Over a 16-month postimplementation period, 1198 patients were seen on 2103 visits. Of these, 950 (79.3%) patients were asked smoking status on first visit and 1030 (86.0%) were asked on at least 1 visit. Of 169 identified smokers, 99 (58.6%) were referred to follow-up support using an opt-out approach. At 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up, intention-to-quit rates among 78 enrolled patients were 24.4%, 22.9% and 19.2%, respectively. Postimplementation staff surveys reported that the protocol was easy to use, that staff would use it again and that it had positive patient responses. Conclusion: Implementation of our smoking cessation protocol in an outpatient surgical clinic was found to be feasible and used minimal clinic resources. This protocol could lead to increases in identification and documentation of smoking status, delivery of smoking cessation interventions and rates of smoking reduction and cessation.

Contexte: Les programmes d'abandon du tabagisme entamés jusqu'à 4 semaines avant une opération réduisent la morbidité et la mortalité périopératoires, mais les cliniques externes n'en proposent que rarement. L'étude visait à évaluer s'il est faisable d'appliquer un protocole de traitement du tabagisme pensé pour les milieux de soins chirurgicaux extrahospitaliers. Méthodes: Nous avons réalisé une étude de faisabilité pré- et postexpérimentale sur l'application d'un protocole de traitement systématique fondé sur des données probantes à une clinique externe de chirurgie colorectale. Les résultats à l'étude étaient les suivants : prévalence du tabagisme, identification des fumeurs et taux d'intervention avant et après la mise en place du protocole, recrutement, rétention, abandon du tabagisme et satisfaction des fournisseurs. Résultats: Au départ, 15,5 % des 116 patients sondés fumaient. Moins de 10 % des répondants avaient été questionnés sur leur statut tabagique, et aucun ne s'était vu proposer un programme d'abandon. Au cours des 16 mois suivant la mise en place du protocole, 1198 patients ont été rencontrés dans le cadre de 2103 consultations. Parmi eux, 950 (79,3 %) ont été interrogés sur leur statut tabagique à la première rencontre, et 1030 (86 %) l'ont été au moins 1 fois. Des 169 fumeurs identifiés, 99 (58,6 %) ont été orientés vers un programme de soutien selon une approche de consentement présumé. Après 1 mois, 24,4 % des 78 patients participants étaient déterminés à arrêter de fumer; 22,9 % l'étaient toujours après 3 mois, et 19,2 % après 6 mois. Les sondages menés a posteriori auprès du personnel indiquent que le protocole est facile à utiliser, que les employés s'en serviraient de nouveau, et que les patients l'ont accueilli favorablement. Conclusion: Il a été possible de mettre en place notre protocole d'abandon du tabagisme à une clinique externe de chirurgie, et ce en employant un minimum de ressources cliniques. Le protocole pourrait permettre de connaître et de consigner davantage de statuts tabagiques, d'orienter un plus grand nombre de fumeurs vers les programmes d'abandon et d'accroître les taux de réduction et d'abandon du tabagisme.

Shared care in surgery: Practical considerations for surgical leaders.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted limitations in current healthcare systems and needed strategies to increase surgical access. This article presents a team-based integration model that embraces intra-disciplinary collaboration in shared clinical care, professional development, and administrative processes to address this surge in demand for surgical care. Implementing this model will require communicating the rationale for and benefits of shared care, while shifting patient trust to a team of providers. For the individual surgeon, advantages of clinical integration through shared care include decreased burnout and professional isolation, and more efficient transitions into and out of practice. Advantages to the system include greater surgeon availability, streamlined disease site wait lists, and promotion of system efficiency through a centralized distribution of clinical resources. We present a framework to stimulate national dialogue around shared care that will ultimately help overcome system bottlenecks for surgical patients and provide support for health professionals.