Patients With Temporary Ostomies: Veterans Administration Hospitals Multi-institutional Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe clinical outcomes of patients with temporary ostomies in 3 Veterans Health Administration hospitals. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study, secondary analysis. SAMPLE AND SETTING: Veterans with temporary ostomies from 3 Veterans Health Administration hospitals who were enrolled in a previous study. The sample comprised 36 participants all were male. Their mean age was 67.05 ± 9.8 years (mean ± standard deviation). Twenty patients (55.6%) had ileostomies and 16 patients (44.4%) had colostomies. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data collected using medical record data. Variables examined included etiology for creation and type of ostomy, health-related quality of life, time to reversal, reasons for nonreversal, postoperative complications after reversal, and mortality in the follow-up period. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer and diverticular disease were the main reasons for temporary stoma formation. The reversal rate was 50%; the median time to reversal was 9 months in our sample; temporary ileostomies were reversed more often than temporary colostomies (P = .18). Comorbid conditions were identified as the main reason for nonreversal. Mortality was not significantly different between the reversal and nonreversal groups. No significant differences were reported with health-related quality-of-life parameters between reversal and nonreversal groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that the proportion of temporary ostomies was limited to 50%. Complications during the index operation, medical comorbidities, and progression of cancer are the main reasons for nonreversal of temporary stomas. Study findings should be included in the counseling of patients who are likely to get intestinal stomas with temporary intention, and during consideration for later reversal of a stoma.

Identifying Population-Level and Within-Hospital Disparities in Surgical Care.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of consensus on equity measurement and its incorporation into quality-assessment programs at the hospital and system levels may be a barrier to addressing disparities in surgical care. This study aimed to identify population-level and within-hospital differences in the quality of surgical care provision. METHODS: The analysis included 657 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participating hospitals with over 4 million patients (2014-2018). Multi-level random slope, random intercept modeling was used to examine for population-level and in-hospital disparities. Disparities in surgical care by Area Deprivation Index (ADI), race, and ethnicity were analyzed for five measures: all-case inpatient mortality, all-case urgent readmission, all-case postoperative surgical site infection, colectomy mortality, and spine surgery complications. RESULTS: Population-level disparities were identified across all measures by ADI, two measures for Black race (all-case readmissions and spine surgery complications), and none for Hispanic ethnicity. Disparities remained significant in the adjusted models. Prior to risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, within-hospital disparities were detected in: 25.8-99.8% of hospitals for ADI, 0-6.1% of hospitals for Black race, and 0-0.8% of hospitals for Hispanic ethnicity. Following risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, fewer than 1.1% of hospitals demonstrated disparities by ADI, race, or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Following risk adjustment, very few hospitals demonstrated significant disparities in care. Disparities were more frequently detected by ADI than by race and ethnicity. The lack of substantial in-hospital disparities may be due to the use of postoperative metrics, small sample sizes, the risk adjustment methodology, and healthcare segregation. Further work should examine surgical access and healthcare segregation.

Disparity-Sensitive Measures in Surgical Care: A Delphi Panel Consensus.

BACKGROUND: In the US, disparities in surgical care impede the delivery of uniformly high-quality care to all patients. There is a lack of disparity-sensitive measures related to surgical care. The American College of Surgeons Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery group, through research and expert consensus, aimed to identify disparity-sensitive measures in surgical care. STUDY DESIGN: An environmental scan, systematic literature review, and subspecialty society surveys were conducted to identify potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. A modified Delphi process was conducted where panelists rated measures on both importance and validity. In addition, a novel literature-based disparity-sensitive scoring process was used. RESULTS: We identified 841 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. From these, our Delphi and literature-based approaches yielded a consensus list of 125 candidate disparity-sensitive measures. These measures were rated as both valid and important and were supported by the existing literature. CONCLUSION: There are profound disparities in surgical care within the US healthcare system. A multidisciplinary Delphi panel identified 125 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures that could be used to track health disparities, evaluate the impact of focused interventions, and reduce healthcare inequity.

Development and Validation of a Novel Literature-Based Method to Identify Disparity-Sensitive Surgical Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Disparity in surgical care impedes the delivery of uniformly high-quality care. Metrics that quantify disparity in care can help identify areas for needed intervention. A literature-based Disparity-Sensitive Score (DSS) system for surgical care was adapted by the Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery (MEASUR) group. The alignment between the MEASUR DSS and Delphi ratings of an expert advisory panel (EAP) regarding the disparity sensitivity of surgical quality metrics was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Using DSS criteria MEASUR co-investigators scored 534 surgical metrics which were subsequently rated by the EAP. All scores were converted to a 9-point scale. Agreement between the new measurement technique (ie DSS) and an established subjective technique (ie importance and validity ratings) were assessed using the Bland-Altman method, adjusting for the linear relationship between the paired difference and the paired average. The limit of agreement (LOA) was set at 1.96 SD (95%). RESULTS: The percentage of DSS scores inside the LOA was 96.8% (LOA, 0.02 points) for the importance rating and 94.6% (LOA, 1.5 points) for the validity rating. In comparison, 94.4% of the 2 subjective EAP ratings were inside the LOA (0.7 points). CONCLUSIONS: Applying the MEASUR DSS criteria using available literature allowed for identification of disparity-sensitive surgical metrics. The results suggest that this literature-based method of selecting quality metrics may be comparable to more complex consensus-based Delphi methods. In fields with robust literature, literature-based composite scores may be used to select quality metrics rather than assembling consensus panels.

Teamwork, communication and safety climate: a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical culture.

OBJECTIVES: To define the target domains of culture-improvement interventions, to assess the impact of these interventions on surgical culture and to determine whether culture improvements lead to better patient outcomes and improved healthcare efficiency. BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are investing considerable resources in improving workplace culture. It remains unclear whether these interventions, when aimed at surgical care, are successful and whether they are associated with changes in patient outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched from January 1980 to January 2015. We included studies on interventions that aimed to improve surgical culture, defined as the interpersonal, social and organisational factors that affect the healthcare environment and patient care. The quality of studies was assessed using an adapted tool to focus the review on higher-quality studies. Due to study heterogeneity, findings were narratively reviewed. FINDINGS: The 47 studies meeting inclusion criteria (4 randomised trials and 10 moderate-quality observational studies) reported on interventions that targeted three domains of culture: teamwork (n=28), communication (n=26) and safety climate (n=19); several targeted more than one domain. All moderate-quality studies showed improvements in at least one of these domains. Two studies also demonstrated improvements in patient outcomes, such as reduced postoperative complications and even reduced postoperative mortality (absolute risk reduction 1.7%). Two studies reported improvements in healthcare efficiency, including fewer operating room delays. These findings were supported by similar results from low-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: The literature provides promising evidence for various strategies to improve surgical culture, although these approaches differ in terms of the interventions employed as well as the techniques used to measure culture. Nevertheless, culture improvement appears to be associated with other positive effects, including better patient outcomes and enhanced healthcare efficiency. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013005987.