Post-discharge Mental Healthcare and Emergency General Surgery Readmission for Patients with Serious Mental Illness.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between post-discharge mental healthcare and odds of readmission after emergency general surgery (EGS) hospitalization for patients with serious mental illness (SMI). BACKGROUND DATA: A mental health visit (MHV) after medical hospitalization is associated with decreased readmissions for patients with SMI. The impact of a MHV after surgical hospitalization is unknown. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we performed a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized EGS patients with SMI aged >65.5 (2016-2018). EGS included colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreatobiliary, hernia, intestinal obstruction, resuscitation, and upper gastrointestinal conditions. SMI was defined as schizophrenia spectrum, mood, or anxiety disorders. The exposure was MHV within 30 days of discharge. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission. Secondary outcomes included emergency department presentation and psychiatric admission. Inverse probability weighting was used to evaluated outcomes. RESULTS: Of 88,092 analyzed patients, 11,755 (13.3%) had a MHV within 30 days of discharge. 23,696 (26.9%) of patients were managed operatively, 64,395 (73.1%) non-operatively. After adjustment for potential confounders, patients with a post-discharge MHV had lower odds of acute care readmission than patients without a MHV in both operative (OR 0.60; 95% CI: [0.40-0.90]) and non-operative (OR 0.67; 95% CI [0.53-0.84]) cohorts. There was no association between post-discharge MHV and ED presentation or psychiatric admission in the operative or non-operative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Post-discharge MHV after EGS hospitalization was associated with decreased odds of readmission for patients with SMI managed operatively and nonoperatively. In older EGS patients with SMI, coordination of MHVs may be a mechanism to reduce readmission disparities.

Belonging in Surgery: A Validated Instrument and Single Institutional Pilot.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to measure Belonging in Surgery among surgical residents. BACKGROUND: Belonging is the essential human need to maintain meaningful relationships and connections to one's community. Increased belongingness is associated with better well-being, job performance, and motivation to learn. However, no tools exist to measure belonging among surgical trainees. METHODS: A panel of experts adapted a belonging instrument for use among United States surgery residents. After administration of the 28-item instrument to residents at a single institution, a Cronbach alpha was calculated to measure internal consistency, and exploratory principal component analyses were performed. Multiple iterations of analyses with successively smaller item samples suggested the instrument could be shortened. The expert panel was reconvened to shorten the instrument. Descriptive statistics measured demographic factors associated with Belonging in Surgery. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 52% (114 responses). The Cronbach alpha among the 28 items was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.96). The exploratory principal component analyses and subsequent Promax rotation yielded 1 dominant component with an eigenvalue of 12.84 (70% of the variance). The expert panel narrowed the final instrument to 11 items with an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.92). Belonging in Surgery was significantly associated with race (Black and Asian residents scoring lower than White residents), graduating with one's original intern cohort (residents who graduated with their original class scoring higher than those that did not), and inversely correlated with resident stress level. CONCLUSIONS: An instrument to measure Belonging in Surgery was validated among surgical residents. With this instrument, Belonging in Surgery becomes a construct that may be used to investigate surgeon performance and well-being.

Costs of Care for Operative and Nonoperative Management of Emergency General Surgery Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Many emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions can be managed operatively or nonoperatively, with outcomes that vary by diagnosis. We hypothesized that operative management would lead to higher in-hospital costs but to cost savings over time. BACKGROUND: EGS conditions account for $28 billion in health care costs in the United States annually. Compared with scheduled surgery, patients who undergo emergency surgery are at increased risk of complications, readmissions, and death, with accompanying costs of care that are up to 50% higher than elective surgery. Our prior work demonstrated that operative management had variable impacts on clinical outcomes depending on the EGS condition. METHODS: This was a nationwide, retrospective study using fee-for-service Medicare claims data. We included patients 65.5 years of age or older with a principal diagnosis for an EGS condition 7/1/2015-6/30/2018. EGS conditions were categorized as: colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), intestinal obstruction, and upper gastrointestinal. We used near-far matching with a preference-based instrumental variable to adjust for confounding and selection bias. Outcomes included Medicare payments for the index hospitalization and at 30, 90, and 180 days. RESULTS: Of 507,677 patients, 30.6% received an operation. For HPB conditions, costs for operative management were initially higher but became equivalent at 90 and 180 days. For all others, operative management was associated with higher inpatient costs, which persisted, though narrowed, over time. Out-of-pocket costs were nearly equivalent for operative and nonoperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonoperative management, costs were higher or equivalent for operative management of EGS conditions through 180 days, which could impact decision-making for clinicians, patients, and health systems in situations where clinical outcomes are similar.

Operative and Nonoperative Outcomes of Emergency General Surgery Conditions: An Observational Study Using a Novel Instrumental Variable.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of operative versus nonoperative management of emergency general surgery conditions on short-term and long-term outcomes. BACKGROUND: Many emergency general surgery conditions can be managed either operatively or nonoperatively, but high-quality evidence to guide management decisions is scarce. METHODS: We included 507,677 Medicare patients treated for an emergency general surgery condition between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. Operative management was compared with nonoperative management using a preference-based instrumental variable analysis and near-far matching to minimize selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Outcomes were mortality, complications, and readmissions. RESULTS: For hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions, operative management was associated with lower risk of mortality at 30 days [-2.6% (95% confidence interval: -4.0, -1.3)], 90 days [-4.7% (-6.50, -2.8)], and 180 days [-6.4% (-8.5, -4.2)]. Among 56,582 intestinal obstruction patients, operative management was associated with a higher risk of inpatient mortality [2.8% (0.7, 4.9)] but no significant difference thereafter. For upper gastrointestinal conditions, operative management was associated with a 9.7% higher risk of in-hospital mortality (6.4, 13.1), which increased over time. There was a 6.9% higher risk of inpatient mortality (3.6, 10.2) with operative management for colorectal conditions, which increased over time. For general abdominal conditions, operative management was associated with 12.2% increased risk of inpatient mortality (8.7, 15.8). This effect was attenuated at 30 days [8.5% (3.8, 13.2)] and nonsignificant thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of operative emergency general surgery management varied across conditions and over time. For colorectal and upper gastrointestinal conditions, outcomes are superior with nonoperative management, whereas surgery is favored for patients with hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions. For obstructions and general abdominal conditions, results were equivalent overall. These findings may support patients, clinicians, and families making these challenging decisions.

Analyzing Impact of Multimorbidity on Long-Term Outcomes after Emergency General Surgery: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of multimorbidity on long-term outcomes for older emergency general surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Medicare beneficiaries, age 65 and older, who underwent operative management of an emergency general surgery condition were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid claims data. Patients were classified as multimorbid based on the presence of a Qualifying Comorbidity Set (a specific combination of comorbid conditions known to be associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality in the general surgery setting) and compared with those without multimorbidity. Risk-adjusted outcomes through 180 days after discharge from index hospitalization were calculated using linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of 174,891 included patients, 45.5% were identified as multimorbid. Multimorbid patients had higher rates of mortality during index hospitalization (5.9% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 3.05, p < 0.001) and through 6 months (17.1% vs 3.4%, OR 2.33, p < 0.001) after discharge. Multimorbid patients experienced higher rates of readmission at 1 month (22.9% vs 11.4%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) and 6 months (38.2% vs 21.2%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) after discharge, lower rates of discharge to home (42.5% vs 74.2%, OR 0.52, p < 0.001), higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation/nursing facility (28.3% vs 11.3%, OR 1.62, p < 0.001), greater than double the use of home oxygen, walker, wheelchair, bedside commode, and hospital bed (p < 0.001), longer length of index hospitalization (1.33 additional in-patient days, p < 0.001), and higher costs through 6 months ($5,162 additional, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid patients experience worse outcomes, including survival and independent function, after emergency general surgery than nonmultimorbid patients through 6 months after discharge from index hospitalization. This information is important for setting recovery expectations for high-risk patients to improve shared decision-making.

Race, gender, and language concordance in the care of surgical patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No consensus exists on whether patient-provider race, gender, and language concordance provides benefits to surgical patients. We report a systematic review of the association between patient-provider concordance and patient preferences and outcomes in surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in Medline and PubMed using defined search terms to identify studies related to patient-provider concordance in surgical patients. We included studies with full manuscripts published in English within the United States (1998 to July 2018). RESULTS: Out of 253 titles screened, 16 studies met inclusion criteria. Five studies had level 4 evidence and 11 studies had level 3 evidence. The majority of patients preferred providers with a similar background (n = 4/6). Race, gender, and language-concordance had no effect on adherence to provider recommendations (n = 3/3). No effect of race concordance on the quality of care was seen (n = 2/3). Gender concordance was associated with improved quality of care (n = 2/3). There were mixed effects of concordance on the effectiveness of communication (n = 2). CONCLUSION: Few studies examine patient-provider concordance. Most patients prioritize culturally, technically, and clinically competent providers over concordance. Future research is needed regarding the influence of concordance on patient outcomes in surgery within specific patient populations and clinical settings.