Impact of a Fast-track Esophagectomy Protocol on Esophageal Cancer Patient Outcomes and Hospital Charges.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a fast-track esophagectomy protocol (FTEP) on esophageal cancer patients' safety, length of hospital stay (LOS), and hospital charges. BACKGROUND: FTEP involved transferring patients to the telemetry unit instead of the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) after esophagectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 708 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer during the 4 years before (group A; 322 patients) or 4 years after (group B; 386 patients) the institution of an FTEP. Postoperative morbidity and mortality, LOS, and hospital charges were reviewed. RESULTS: Compared with group A, group B had significantly shorter median LOS (12 days vs 8 days; P < 0.001); lower mean numbers of SICU days (4.5 days vs 1.2 days; P < 0.001) and telemetry days (12.7 days vs 9.7 days; P < 0.001); and lower rates of atrial arrhythmia (27% vs 19%; P = 0.013) and pulmonary complications (27% vs 20%; P = 0.016). Multivariable analysis revealed FTEP to be associated with shorter LOS (P < 0.001) even after adjustment for predictors like tumor histology and location. FTEP was also associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications (odds ratio = 0.655; 95% confidence interval = 0.456, 0.942; P = 0.022). In addition, the median hospital charges associated with primary admission and readmission within 90 days for group B ($65,649) were lower than that for group A ($79,117; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that an FTEP reduces patients' LOS, perioperative morbidity, and hospital charges.

Improving cancer care through public reporting of meaningful quality measures.

Historically, quality measures for cancer have followed a different route than overall quality measures in the health care system. Many specialized cancer treatment centers were exempt from standard reporting on quality measures because of the complexity of cancer. Additionally, it has been difficult to create meaningful quality measures for cancer because the disease can strike so many different organs; is discovered at and progresses through different stages; and is treated using different modalities, such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Over the past decade the National Quality Forum, a nonprofit organization dedicated to bettering the quality of US health care, has endorsed measures of quality for cancer providers and patients. The Affordable Care Act of 2010, which has sections specific to cancer reporting, will also further the development and public reporting of cancer quality measures-important steps in improving the delivery of cancer care.

A tale of 2 hospitals: a staggered cohort study of targeted interventions to improve compliance with antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the effectiveness of targeted interventions to improve compliance with antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines (timing, spectrum, and discontinuation) at 2 university-affiliated hospitals. METHODS: Based on barriers identified previously, hospital-specific interventions were developed such as educational conferences, standardized forms, an extended time-out, and feedback. Guideline compliance and surgical site infection (SSI) data were recorded on all patients who underwent elective laparotomies for colorectal procedures, vascular operations, and hysterectomies during four 6-month study periods. Prestudy data from July to December 2006 served as a baseline. One year later, a prospective cohort study was performed. The interventions were introduced to the 2 hospitals in a staggered fashion with 2-month implementation periods before reassessing compliance during the 6-month study periods. General linear modeling was performed (P < .05 significant). RESULTS: Compliance with all 3 guidelines combined improved during the year preceding the study, after attention only, at both hospitals. Hospital-specific differences were found in the effectiveness of the intervention package on individual guidelines. Hospital 2 but not 1 improved in timing after the interventions; both hospitals improved in spectrum, and neither hospital improved in discontinuation. Overall compliance with all 3 antibiotic prophylactic measures was greater at hospital 1, but hospital 2 had lower SSI rates. CONCLUSION: Simply increasing attention to a quality problem can result in a significant and sustained improvement. Quality improvement interventions should be evaluated rigorously for effectiveness given hospital-specific differences in effectiveness and for correlation of guideline compliance with outcome.