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.

A Descriptive Analysis of the Use of Workplace-Based Assessments in UK Surgical Training.

BACKGROUND: Workplace-based assessments (WBAs) were introduced formally in the UK in 2007. The aim of the study was to describe the use of WBAs by UK surgical trainees and examine variations by training region, specialty, and level of training. METHODS: The database of the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme was examined for WBAs between August 2007 and July 2013, with in-depth analysis of 2 periods: August 2011 to July 2012 and August 2012 to July 2013. RESULTS: The numbers of validated WBAs per trainee per year increased more than 7-fold, from median 6 per trainee in 2007 to 2008, to 39 in 2011 to 2012, and 44 in 2012 to 2013. In the period 2011 to 2012, 58.4% of core trainees completed the recommended 40 WBAs, with only 38.1% of specialty trainees achieving 40 validated WBAs. In the period 2012 to 2013, these proportions increased to 67.7% and 57.0% for core and specialty trainees, respectively. Core trainees completed more WBAs per year than specialty trainees in the same training region. London core trainees completed the highest numbers of WBAs in both the periods 2011 to 2012 (median 67) and 2012 to 2013 (median 74). There was a peak in WBAs completed by London specialty trainees in the period 2012 to 2013 (median 63). The most validated WBAs were completed by ST1/CT1 (specialty surgical training year, core surgical training year), with a gradual decrease in median WBAs to ST4, followed by a plateau; in the period 2012 to 2013, there was an increase in WBAs at ST8. Core surgical trainees complete ~50% "operative" (procedure-based assessment/direct observation of procedural skills) and ~50% "nonoperative" assessments (case-based discussion/clinical evaluation exercise). During specialty training, procedure-based assessments represented ~46% of WBAs, direct observation of procedural skills 11.2%, case-based discussion ~23%, and clinical evaluation exercise ~15%. CONCLUSIONS: UK surgical trainees are, on an average, undertaking 1 WBA per week. Variation exists in use of WBAs between training regions. Core trainees tend to use the spectrum of WBAs more frequently than their senior colleagues do. Further work is required to examine the role of WBAs in assessment, and engagement and training of trainers in processes and validation of WBAs.