Private Equity Investment in Surgical Care.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the extent of private equity investment affecting surgical care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Over the last decade, investor-backed, for-profit private equity groups have invested in healthcare at an unprecedented rate, but the breadth of these investments affecting surgical practice remains largely unknown. METHODS: Four nationally representative databases were used to identify all merger/acquisitions involving surgical practices between 2015-2019, determine private equity investment in those transactions, and link the acquisitions with a physician dataset. RESULTS: 1,542 unique transactions were identified, of which 539 were financed by private equity. 58 transactions were then classified into their respective categories within surgical care: digestive disease, orthopedics, urology, vascular surgery, and plastic/cosmetic surgery. These transactions accounted for 199 practice sites and 1,405 physicians, averaging 24.2 physicians per transaction. Acquisition activity peaked in 2017 with a total of 63 practices involved. Digestive disease, urology, and orthopedic surgery accounted for the most activity. General surgeons were involved in a small share of the digestive disease practice acquisitions. Three "surgery-adjacent" categories were also identified: anesthesiology, ambulatory surgery centers, and surgical staffing firms. Among these, anesthesia was the largest category in terms of practices (194) and physicians (2,660) involved in transactions across the study period. Medical Service Organizations (MSOs) were a key mechanism through which private equity firms invested in surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: Private equity has engaged in substantial investment within surgical specialties, creating increased practice consolidation. These investments affect all levels of medical care and have notable implications for patients, practitioners, and policymakers.

Real-world implementation of normothermic machine perfusion: A detailed analysis of intraoperative and early postoperative impact.

BACKGROUND: Outcome data for the great majority of liver normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) cases derive from the strict confines of clinical trials. Detailed specifics regarding the intraoperative and early postoperative impact of NMP on reperfusion injury and its sequelae during real-world use of this emerging technology remain largely unavailable. METHODS: We analyzed transplants performed in a 3-month pilot period during which surgeons invoked commercial NMP at their discretion. Living donor, multi-organ, and hypothermic machine perfusion transplants were excluded. RESULTS: Intraoperatively, NMP (n = 24) compared to static cold storage (n = 25) recipients required less peri-reperfusion bolus epinephrine (0 vs. 60 µg; p < .001) and post-reperfusion fresh frozen plasma (2.5 vs. 7.0 units; p = .0069), platelets (.0 vs. 2.0 units; p = .042), and hemostatic agents (0% vs. 24%; p = .010). Time from incision to venous reperfusion did not differ (3.6 vs. 3.1; p = .095) but time from venous reperfusion to surgery end was shorter for NMP recipients (2.3 vs. 2.8 h; p = .0045). Postoperatively, NMP recipients required fewer red blood cell (1.0 vs. 4.0 units; p = .0083) and fresh frozen plasma (4.0 vs. 7.0 units; p = .046) transfusions, had shorter intensive care unit stays (33.5 vs. 58.4 h; p = .012), and experienced less early allograft dysfunction according to both the Model for Early Allograft Function Score (3.4 vs. 5.0; p = .0047) and peak AST within 10 days of transplant (619 vs. 1,181 U/L; p = .036). Liver acceptance for the corresponding recipient was conditional on NMP use for 63% (15/24) of cases. CONCLUSION: Real-world NMP use was associated with significantly lower intensity of reperfusion injury and intraoperative and postoperative care that may translate into patient benefit.

Changes in Dialysis Center Quality Associated With the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program : An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services started levying performance-based financial penalties against outpatient dialysis centers under the mandatory End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether penalization was associated with improvement in dialysis center quality. DESIGN: Leveraging the threshold for penalization (total performance score < 60), a regression discontinuity design was used to examine the effect of penalization on quality over 2 years. Publicly available Medicare data from 2015-2018 were used. The effect of penalization at dialysis centers with different characteristics (for example, size or chain affiliation) was also examined. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatient dialysis centers (n = 5830). MEASUREMENTS: Dialysis center total performance scores (a composite metric ranging from 0 to 100 based on clinical quality and adherence to reporting requirements) and individual measures that contribute to the total performance score. RESULTS: There were 1109 (19.0%) outpatient dialysis centers that received penalties in 2017 on the basis of performance in 2015. Penalized centers were located in ZIP codes with a higher average proportion of non-White residents (36.4% vs. 31.2%; P < 0.001) and residents with lower median income ($49 290 vs. $51 686; P < 0.001). Penalization was not associated with improvement in total performance scores in 2017 (0.4 point [95% CI, -2.5 to 3.2 points]) or 2018 (0.3 point [CI, -2.8 to 3.4 points]). This was consistent across dialysis centers with different characteristics. There was also no association between penalization and improvement in specific measures. LIMITATION: The study could not account for how centers respond to penalization. CONCLUSION: Penalization under the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program was not associated with improvement in the quality of outpatient dialysis centers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Wide Variation in Surgical Spending Within Hospital Systems: A Missed Opportunity for Bundled Payment Success.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the extent of variation in episode spending around total hip replacement within and across hospital systems. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Bundled payment programs are pressuring hospitals to reduce spending on surgery. Meanwhile, many hospitals are joining larger health systems with the stated goal of improved care at lower cost. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing total hip replacement in 2016 at hospital systems identified in the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We calculated risk- and reliability-adjusted average 30-day episode payments at the hospital and system level. RESULTS: Average episode payments varied nearly as much within hospital systems ($2515 between the lowest- and highest-cost hospitals, 95% confidence interval $2272-$2,758) as they did between the lowest- and highest-cost quintiles of systems ($2712, 95% confidence interval $2545-$2879). Variation was driven by post-acute care utilization. Many systems have concentrated hip replacement volume at relatively high-cost hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Given the wide variation in surgical spending within health systems, we propose tailored strategies for systems to maximize savings in bundled payment programs.

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Therapy and Upfront Resection for Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: An Instrumental Variable Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is increasingly being used in the management of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, there is a lack of evidence regarding the benefit among these patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS) in PDAC patients with resectable disease treated with NAT or upfront resection through instrumental variable (IV) analysis. DESIGN: A national cohort study of resectable PDAC patients in the National Cancer Data Base (2007-2015) treated with either upfront surgery or resection after NAT. Using multivariable modeling and IV methods, OS was compared between those treated with NAT and upfront resection. The IV was hospital-level NAT utilization in the most recent year prior to treatment. RESULTS: The cohort included 16,666 patients (14,012 upfront resection; 2654 NAT) treated at 779 hospitals. Among those treated with upfront resection, 59.9% received any adjuvant therapy. NAT patients had higher median (27.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] 26.2-29.1) and 5-year OS (24.1%, 95% CI 21.9-26.3%) compared with those treated with upfront surgery (median 21.2 months, 95% CI 20.7-21.6; 5-year survival 20.9%, 95% CI 20.1-21.7%). After multivariable modeling, NAT was associated with an approximately 20% decrease in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.84), and this effect was magnified in the IV analysis (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable PDAC, NAT is associated with improved survival relative to upfront resection. Given the benefits of multimodality therapy and the challenges in receiving adjuvant therapy, consideration should be given to treating all PDAC patients with NAT.

Variation in colectomy rates for benign polyp and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Removal of pre-cancerous polyps on screening colonoscopy is a mainstay of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Complex polyps may require surgical removal with colectomy, an operation with a 17% morbidity and 1.5% mortality rate. Recently, advanced endoscopic techniques have allowed some patients with complex polyps to avoid the morbidity of colectomy. However, the rate of colectomy for benign polyp in the United States is unclear, and variation in this rate across geographic regions has not been studied. We compared regional variation in colectomy rates for CRC versus benign polyp. METHODS: We performed a retrospective population-based study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colectomy for CRC or benign polyp, using the 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2010 to 2015. We used multivariable linear regression to obtain population-based colectomy rates for CRC and benign polyp at the hospital referral region (HRR) level, adjusted for age, sex, and race. RESULTS: Of 280,815 patients, 157,802 (65.8%) underwent colectomy for CRC compared to 81,937 (34.2%) for benign polyp. Across HRRs, colectomy rates varied 5.8-fold for cancer (0.32-1.84 per 1000 beneficiaries). However, there was a 69-fold variation for benign polyp (0.01-0.69). While the rate of colectomy for CRC was correlated with the rate of colectomy for benign polyp (slope = 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.75), HRRs with the lowest or highest rates of colectomy for CRC did not necessarily have similarly low or high rates for benign polyp. CONCLUSIONS: The use of colectomy for benign polyp is much more variable compared to CRC, suggesting overuse of colectomy for benign polyp in some regions. This variation may stem from provider-level differences, such as endoscopists' referral practice or skill or surgeons' decision to perform colectomy, or from limited access to advanced endoscopists. Interventions to increase endoscopic resection of benign polyps may spare some patients the morbidity and cost of surgery.

Perioperative risks of bariatric surgery among patients with and without history of solid organ transplant.

Bariatric surgery is effective among patients with previous transplant in limited case series. However, the perioperative safety of bariatric surgery in this patient population is poorly understood. Therefore, we assessed the safety of bariatric surgery among previous-transplant patients using a database that captures >92% of all US bariatric procedures. All primary, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures between 2017 and 2018 were identified from the MBSAQIP dataset. Patients with previous transplant (n = 610) were compared with patients without previous transplant (n = 321 447). Primary outcomes were 30 day readmissions, surgical complications, medical complications, and death. Multivariable logistic regression with predictive margins was used to compare outcomes. Previous transplant patients experienced higher incidence of readmissions (8.0% vs 3.5%), surgical complications (5.0% vs 2.7%), and medical complications (4.3% vs 1.5%). There was no difference in incidence of death (0.2% vs 0.1%). Among individual complications, there no statistical differences in intraabdominal leak, unplanned reoperation, myocardial infarction, or infectious complications. Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was found to be a strong moderator of primary outcomes, with the highest risk of complications occurring at the lowest baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. Given the many long-term benefits of bariatric surgery among patients with previous transplant, our findings should not preclude this patient population from operative consideration.

Out-of-Network Bills for Privately Insured Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery With In-Network Primary Surgeons and Facilities.

Importance: Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians. Objective: To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347 356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67 452]; total knee replacement [42 313]; breast lumpectomy [18 018]; colectomy [14 074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017. Exposure: Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service. Results: Among 347 356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P < .001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001). Among 83 021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

Association of Hospital Network Participation With Surgical Outcomes and Medicare Expenditures.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether hospital network participation is associated with improvement in surgical outcomes and spending compared to control hospitals not participating in a network. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATE: Hospitals face significant financial and organizational pressures to integrate into networks. It remains unclear whether these business arrangements impact clinical quality or healthcare expenditures. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, quasi-experimental study of 1,981,095 national Medicare beneficiaries (2007-2014) undergoing general, vascular, cardiac, or orthopedic surgery at a network (n = 1868) or non-network (n = 2734) hospital. We tested whether joining a network was associated with improvement in the study outcomes after accounting for overall trends toward better outcomes. We used hierarchical multivariable logistical and linear regression to adjust for patient factors, procedural characteristics, type of admission, and hospital factors. RESULTS: After accounting for patient factors and existing trends toward better outcomes, there was no association between network participation and surgical outcomes. For example, the rates of serious complications were similar between network [11.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.1%-11.5%] and non-network hospitals (11.2%; 95% CI 11.0%-11.3%; odds ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03, P = 0.92). There was no association between time-in-network and improvement in rates of serious complications during the 8-year study period. For example, after 7 years of network participation, the rate of serious complications in 2014 was 9.6% (95% CI 8.8%-10.4%) in network hospitals versus 9.2% (95% CI 8.5%-9.9%, P = 0.11) in non-network hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital network participation was not associated with improvements in patient outcomes or lower episode payments among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing inpatient surgery.

Targeting Value-Driven Quality Improvement for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Michigan.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate complete episode expenditures for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a common and lower-risk operation, to characterize novel targets for value-based quality improvement. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite enthusiasm for improving the overall value of surgical care, most efforts have focused on high-risk inpatient surgery. METHODS: We identified 19,213 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2012 to 2015 using data from Medicare and a large private payer. We calculated price-standardized payments for the entire surgical episode of care and stratified patients by surgeon. We used linear regression to risk- and reliability-adjusted expenditures for patient characteristics, diagnoses, and the use of additional procedures. RESULTS: Fully adjusted total episode costs varied 2.4-fold across surgeons ($7922-$17,500). After grouping surgeons by adjusted total episode payments, each component of the total episode was more expensive for patients treated by the most expensive versus the least expensive quartile of surgeons. For example, payments for physician services were higher for the most expensive surgeons [$1932, 95% confidence interval (CI) $1844-$2021] compared to least expensive surgeons ($1592, 95% CI $1450-$1701, P < 0.01). Overall differences were driven by higher rates of complications (10% vs. 5%) and readmissions (14% vs. 8%), and lower rates of ambulatory procedures (77% vs. 56%) for surgeons with the highest versus lowest expenditures. Projections showed that a 10% increase ambulatory operations would yield $3.6 million in annual savings for beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Episode payments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy vary widely across surgeons. Although improvements in several domains would reduce expenditures, efforts to expand ambulatory surgical practices may result in the largest savings to beneficiaries in Michigan.

How Patient Complexity and Surgical Approach Influence Episode-Based Payment Models for Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Bundled payment programs broaden hospitals' responsibility for spending to entire episodes of care. After demonstration programs in cardiac surgery and joint replacement, these payment reforms could soon extend to major operations like colectomy under Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement - Advanced Model. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate how specific policies and surgical practice patterns would influence hospital reimbursement in a bundled payment program for colectomy. DESIGN: This was a population-based study. SETTINGS: We used national data from the 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files for the years 2010 to 2014. PATIENTS: We identified patients undergoing colon resections by using diagnosis-related group codes and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We simulated per case reconciliation payments as the difference between actual price-standardized 90-day episode payments and estimated regional spending benchmarks among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colectomy (2010-2014).We projected per patient and overall hospital-level reconciliation payments and the proportion of hospitals that would achieve shared savings under bundled payment conditions. We also assessed how variation in the use of laparoscopy could influence shared savings, using instrumental variable methods to account for selection bias between laparoscopic and open procedures. RESULTS: Under simulated bundled payment conditions, 51.8% of hospitals would achieve shared savings, but the average case would incur a reconciliation penalty of -$234 (95% CI, -$245 to -$223). Risk adjustment would increase the proportion of hospitals with shared savings to 54.3% (per case payment, +$237; 95% CI, $96-$379). Hospitals performing a greater proportion of cases laparoscopically would achieve higher per case reconciliation payments. For example, per case reconciliation penalties would be -$472 (95% CI, -$506 to -$438) for hospitals that performed 10% of their procedures laparoscopically, whereas those that performed 70% laparoscopically would receive payments of +$294 (95% CI, $262-$326). LIMITATIONS: Alternative payment models for colectomy have not yet been introduced. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical leaders must be prepared with strategies for optimizing episode efficiency. Inclusion of risk adjustment in bundled payment calculations and expanding utilization of laparoscopic surgery may represent approaches to achieve shared savings and improve surgeon engagement in alternative payment models for surgical care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A928.

Understanding Disparities in Surgical Outcomes for Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated whether outcome disparities between Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries are driven by the hospital at which the patient receives care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the hospital on surgical outcomes in Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: We identified 139,566 non-elderly Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries undergoing general, vascular, or gynecological surgery between 2012 and 2017 using a statewide clinical registry in Michigan. We calculated risk-adjusted rates of complications, readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and post-acute care utilization using multivariable logistic regression, accounting for patient and procedural factors. We then evaluated whether, and to what extent, the hospital influenced outcome disparities between Medicaid and privately insured beneficiaries. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted rates for all outcomes were higher in Medicaid beneficiaries. For example, overall post-discharge ED visit rates were 14.3% (95% CI 13.7% to 14.9%) for Medicaid compared to 7.5% (95% CI 7.1% to 7.9%, P < 0.01) for private insurance beneficiaries. Hospital factors explained 3.9% of the observed difference in complication rates between Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries. In contrast, hospital factors explained a greater proportion of the disparities in readmissions (30.6%), ED visits (33.0%), and post-acute care utilization (16.1%). Results were similar when restricting the study population to elective cases only. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital factors account for a significant proportion of the disparities in post-discharge resource utilization between Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries. Policies aiming to improve the quality and equity of surgical care for Medicaid beneficiaries should focus on the post-discharge period.

Surgeon Experience and Medicare Expenditures for Laparoscopic Compared to Open Colectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent to which payments for laparoscopic and open colectomy are influenced by a surgeon's experience with laparoscopy. BACKGROUND: Numerous studies suggest that healthcare costs for laparoscopic colectomy are lower than open surgery. None have assessed the importance of surgeon experience on the relative financial benefits of laparoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a study of 182,852 national Medicare beneficiaries undergoing laparoscopic or open colectomy between 2010 and 2012. Using instrumental variable methods to account for selection bias, we compared Medicare payments for laparoscopic and open colectomy. We stratified our analysis by surgeons' annual experience with laparoscopic colectomy to determine the influence of provider experience on payments. RESULTS: In the fully adjusted analysis, average episode payments per patient were $2640 [95% confidence interval (CI) -$4091 to -$1189] lower with the laparoscopic approach versus open. Surgeons in the highest quartile of laparoscopic experience demonstrated an average payment savings of $5456 per patient (CI -$7918 to -$2994) in their laparoscopic versus open cases. Among surgeons in the lowest quartile of laparoscopic experience, there was, however, no difference between laparoscopic and open cases (difference: $954, 95% CI -$731 to $2639). Differences in payments were explained by differences in complications rates. Both groups had similar rates of complications for open procedures (least experience, 21%, most experience, 21%; P = 0.45), but differed significantly on rates of complications for laparoscopic cases (least experience, 28%, most experience, 15%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study demonstrates that differences in payments between laparoscopic and open colectomy are influenced by surgeon experience. The laparoscopic approach does not reduce payments for patients whose surgeons have limited experience with the procedure.

Impact of Hospital Characteristics on Failure to Rescue Following Major Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of hospital characteristics on failure to rescue after high-risk surgery in Medicare beneficiaries. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Reducing failure to rescue events is a common quality target for US hospitals. Little is known about which hospital characteristics influence this phenomenon and more importantly by how much. METHODS: We identified 1,945,802 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing 1 of six high-risk general or vascular operations between 2007 and 2010. Using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression modeling, we evaluated how failure to rescue rates were influenced by specific hospital characteristics previously associated with postsurgical outcomes. We used variance partitioning to determine the relative influence of patient and hospital characteristics on the between-hospital variability in failure to rescue rates. RESULTS: Failure to rescue rates varied up to 11-fold between very high and very low mortality hospitals. Comparing the highest and lowest mortality hospitals, we observed that teaching status (range: odds ratio [OR] 1.08-1.54), high hospital technology (range: OR 1.08-1.58), increasing nurse-to-patient ratio (range: OR 1.02-1.14), and presence of >20 intensive care unit (ICU) beds (range: OR 1.09-1.62) significantly influenced failure to rescue rates for all procedures. When taken together, hospital and patient characteristics accounted for 12% (lower extremity revascularization) to 57% (esophagectomy) of the observed variation in failure to rescue rates across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Although several hospital characteristics are associated with lower failure to rescue rates, these macrosystem factors explain a small proportion of the variability between hospitals. This suggests that microsystem characteristics, such as hospital culture and safety climate, may play a larger role in improving a hospital's ability to manage postoperative complications.

Results of a statewide survey of surgeons' care practices for emergency Hartmann's procedure.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality but has seldom been targeted for practice improvement. The goal of this study was to determine whether perioperative practices vary among surgeons for emergency Hartmann's procedures and whether perioperative care practices are associated with hospitals' complication rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey of surgeons at 27 Michigan hospitals. Questionnaires focused on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care practices. Hospitals were divided into quartiles of risk-adjusted complication rates. Responses of surgeons at hospitals with the lowest complication rates were compared to those with the highest, to determine whether there were systematic differences. Qualitative content analysis was performed for open-ended questions. RESULTS: A total of 106 surgeons returned questionnaires (response rate 49%). We identified variation in use of bowel preparation, ostomy site marking, rectal stump management, ostomy protrusion, skin closure method, antibiotics duration, and ambulation/physical therapy practices. Surgeons from hospitals with low complication rates were more likely to use a clean instrument tray during wound closure (61% versus 11%, P = 0.001) and reported greater use of laparoscopic lavage without resection for emergency diverticulitis cases (31% versus 6%, P = 0.05). Surgeons in the lower complication rate hospitals listed more modifiable care factors in their open-ended responses to questions about reasons for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons' practices vary for emergency Hartmann's procedure. This study serves as a proof of concept that studying surgeons' practices is feasible within a quality collaborative setting. Such data can be used to generate testable hypotheses for performance improvement aimed in high-risk, emergency surgery.