The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP patient study): protocol for a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study to measure quality of care and outcomes after major surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Major surgery accounts for a substantial proportion of health service activity, due not only to the primary procedure, but the longer-term health implications of poor short-term outcome. Data from small studies or from outside the UK indicate that rates of complications and failure to rescue vary between hospitals, as does compliance with best practice processes. Within the UK, there is currently no system for monitoring postoperative complications (other than short-term mortality) in major non-cardiac surgery. Further, there is variation between national audit programmes, in the emphasis placed on quality assurance versus quality improvement, and therefore the principles of measurement and reporting which are used to design such programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PQIP patient study is a multi-centre prospective cohort study which recruits patients undergoing major surgery. Patient provide informed consent and contribute baseline and outcome data from their perspective using a suite of patient-reported outcome tools. Research and clinical staff complete data on patient risk factors and outcomes in-hospital, including two measures of complications. Longer-term outcome data are collected through patient feedback and linkage to national administrative datasets (mortality and readmissions). As well as providing a uniquely granular dataset for research, PQIP provides feedback to participating sites on their compliance with evidence-based processes and their patients' outcomes, with the aim of supporting local quality improvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority in the UK. Dissemination of interim findings (non-inferential) will form a part of the improvement methodology and will be provided to participating centres at regular intervals, including near-real time feedback of key process measures. Inferential analyses will be published in the peer-reviewed literature, supported by a comprehensive multi-modal communications strategy including to patients, policy makers and academic audiences as well as clinicians.

Delivery of drinking, eating and mobilising (DrEaMing) and its association with length of hospital stay after major noncardiac surgery: observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways are associated with improved postoperative outcomes. However, as enhanced recovery pathways have become more complex and varied, compliance has reduced. The 'DrEaMing' bundle re-prioritises early postoperative delivery of drinking, eating, and mobilising. We investigated relationships between DrEaMing compliance, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in a prospective multicentre major surgical cohort. METHODS: We interrogated the UK Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme dataset. Analyses were conducted in four stages. In an exploratory cohort, we identified independent predictors of DrEaMing. We quantified the association between delivery of DrEaMing (and its component variables) and prolonged LOS in a homogenous colorectal subgroup and assessed generalisability in multispecialty patients. Finally, LOS and complications were compared across hospitals, stratified by DrEaMing compliance. RESULTS: The exploratory cohort comprised 22 218 records, the colorectal subgroup 7230, and the multispecialty subgroup 5713. DrEaMing compliance was 59% (13 112 patients), 60% (4341 patients), and 60% (3421), respectively, but varied substantially between hospitals. Delivery of DrEaMing predicted reduced odds of prolonged LOS in colorectal (odds ratio 0.51 [0.43-0.59], P<0.001) and multispecialty cohorts (odds ratio 0.47 [0.41-0.53], P<0.001). At the hospital level, complications were not the primary determinant of LOS after colorectal surgery, but consistent delivery of DrEaMing was associated with significantly shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of bundled and unbundled DrEaMing was associated with substantial reductions in postoperative LOS, independent of the effects of confounder variables. Consistency of process delivery, and not complications, predicted shorter hospital-level length of stay. DrEaMing may be adopted by perioperative health systems as a quality metric to support improved patient outcomes and reduced hospital length of stay.

Socioeconomic deprivation and long-term outcomes after elective surgery: analysis of prospective data from two observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with health inequalities. We explored relationships between socioeconomic group and outcomes after elective surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: We combined data from two observational studies in 115 NHS hospitals and determined socioeconomic group using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintiles based on place of residence. Postoperative complications and 3-yr survival were assessed using logistic and Cox regression. Univariate analyses were adjusted for age differences between IMD quintiles. Multivariable analyses were used to account for other baseline risk factors including sex and comorbid disease. Results are reported as n (%), hazard ratios (HR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Postoperative complications developed in 971/9051 patients (10.7%) and 1597/9043 patients (17.7%) died within 3 yr. Complication rates increased with deprivation (reference group least-deprived IMD5): IMD1 (OR=1.44 [1.17-1.78]; P<0.001), IMD2 (OR=1.38 [1.12-1.70]; P<0.01), IMD3 (OR=1.09 [0.88-1.35]: P=0.44), IMD4 (OR=0.89 [0.71-1.11]; P=0.30). More patients from the most deprived quintile died (IMD1) (n=349, 18.8%) compared with the least deprived (IMD5) (n=297, 15.9%) with a trend across the socioeconomic spectrum (P=0.01). After age adjustment, patients in the most deprived areas experienced reduced 3-yr survival: IMD1 (HR=1.43 [1.23-1.67]; P<0.0001), IMD2 (HR=1.35 [1.15-1.57]; P<0.001), IMD3 (HR=1.04 [0.89-1.23]; P=0.60), and IMD4 (HR=1.11 [0.95-1.30]; P=0.19). This finding persisted in risk-adjusted analyses. Increased complication rates only partially explained this reduced survival. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse long-term outcomes after elective surgery. This risk factor should be considered when planning perioperative care for patients from deprived areas.

Mixed-methods evaluation of the Perioperative Medicine Service for High-Risk Patients Implementation Pilot (POMSHIP): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative complications have a lasting effect on health-related quality of life and long-term survival. The Royal College of Anaesthetists has proposed the development of perioperative medicine (POM) services as an intervention aimed at improving postoperative outcome, by providing better coordinated care for high-risk patients. The Perioperative Medicine Service for High-risk Patients Implementation Pilot was developed to determine if a specialist POM service is able to reduce postoperative morbidity, failure to rescue, mortality and cost associated with hospital admission. The service involves individualised objective risk assessment, admission to a postoperative critical care unit and follow-up on the surgical ward by the POM team. This paper introduces the service and how it will be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVALUATION: A mixed-methods evaluation is exploring the impact of the service. Clinical effectiveness of the service is being analysed using a 'before and after' comparison of the primary outcome (the PostOperative Morbidity Score). Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, validated surveys to explore quality of life (EQ-5D) and quality of recovery (Quality of Recovery-15 Score). The impact on costs is being analysed using 'before and after' data from the Patient-Level Information and Costing System and the National Schedule of Reference Costs. The perceptions and experiences of staff and patients with the service, and how it is being implemented, are being explored by a qualitative process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was classified as a service evaluation. Participant information sheets and consent forms have been developed for the interviews and approvals required for the use of the validated surveys were obtained. The findings of the evaluation are being used formatively, to make changes in the service throughout implementation. The findings will also be used to inform the potential roll-out of the service to other sites.