Shop-to-Stop Hypertension: A multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial protocol to improve screening and text message follow-up of adults with high blood pressure at health kiosks in hardware retail stores.

High blood pressure (BP) is the leading preventable risk factor for death, but only one in three patients achieve target BP control. A key contributor to this problem is poor population awareness of high BP, as the majority of patients are asymptomatic. The Shop-To-Stop Hypertension study is a multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial to identify, refer and follow adults in need of hypertension care, whilst raising population-wide awareness. In participants with high BP measured by SiSU Health Stations located in major hardware chain stores across New South Wales, Australia, we will determine whether text message-based nudges will encourage repeat BP checks and visits to their doctor. Based on pilot data, we anticipate 65,340 participants will be screened over 12 months, of which 18% will have high BP. Thirty hardware stores will be randomized (1:1) to: (i) Intervention: participants detected with high BP (≥140/≥90 mmHg) will receive text message-based nudges to return for a repeat SiSU Health Station BP check and to visit their general practitioner (GP) to check and manage their BP; (ii) Control: participants with high BP will not receive text messages. The primary outcome is the difference in the proportion of participants with high BP having a repeat BP check at hardware Health Stations in the intervention vs. control group at 12 months. This novel setting for screening utilises a novel 'citizen science' approach inviting the general public to perform their own BP screening at health kiosks and foster behavioral change. This will allow screening in a low-stress environment.

Failure to rescue following oesophagectomy in Australia: a multi-site retrospective study using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (FTR), defined as death after a major complication, is increasingly being used as a surrogate for assessing quality of care following major cancer resection. The aim of this paper is to determine the failure to rescue (FTR) rate after oesophagectomy and explore factors that may contribute to FTR within Australia. METHODS: A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2015 to 2023 at five Australian hospitals was conducted to identify patients who underwent an oesophagectomy. The primary outcome was FTR rate. Perioperative parameters were examined to evaluate predictive factors for FTR. Secondary outcomes include major complications, overall morbidity, mortality, length of stay and 30-day readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included with a median age of 65.2 years, 74.8% being male. The FTR rate was 6.3%. In total, 50.3% of patients (n = 78) developed at least one postoperative complication with the most common complication being pneumonia (20.6%) followed by prolonged intubation (12.9%) and organ space SSI/anastomotic leak (11.0%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine any factors that were predictive for FTR however none reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to evaluate the FTR rates following oesophagectomy within Australia, with FTR rates and complication profile comparable to international benchmarks. Integration of multi-institutional national databases such as ACS NSQIP into units is essential to monitor and compare patient outcomes following major cancer surgery, especially in low to moderate volume centres.

Comparison of administrative data and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data in a New South Wales Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is widely used in North America for benchmarking. In 2015, NSQIP was introduced to four New South Wales public hospitals. The aim of this study is to investigate the agreement between NSQIP and administrative data in the Australian setting; to compare the performance of models derived from each data set to predict 30-day outcomes. METHODS: The NSQIP and administrative data variables were mapped to select variables available in both data sets where coding may be influenced by interpretation of the clinical information. These were compared for agreement. Logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the probability of adverse outcomes within 30 days. Models derived from NSQIP and administrative data were compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2240 procedures over 21 months had matching records. Functional status demonstrated poor agreement (kappa 0.02): administrative data recorded only one (1%) patient with partial- or total-dependence as recorded by NSQIP data. The American Society of Anesthesiologists class demonstrated excellent agreement (kappa 0.91). Other perioperative variables demonstrated poor to fair agreement (kappa 0.12-0.61). Predictive model based on NSQIP data was excellent at predicting mortality but was less accurate for complications and readmissions. The NSQIP model was better in predicting mortality and complications (receiver operating characteristic curve 0.93 versus 0.87; P = 0.029 and 0.71 versus 0.64; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: There is poor agreement between NSQIP data and administrative data. Predictive models associated with NSQIP data were more accurate at predicting surgical outcomes than those from administrative data. To drive quality improvement in surgery, high-quality clinical data are required and we believe that NSQIP fulfils this function.

Quality improvement in surgery: introduction of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program into New South Wales.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement in surgery requires accurate, reliable, risk-adjusted and comparative data. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) takes reliable clinical data and provides risk-adjusted comparisons with more than 800 hospitals. This paper describes the early outcomes of introducing this programme into New South Wales (NSW). METHODS: Four NSW hospitals formed a collaborative. Surgical clinical reviewers were trained and data collected. Risk-adjusted reports were returned to individual hospitals and the NSW Collaborative. RESULTS: The results identified that the NSW Collaborative were outliers for the following causes of morbidity: urinary tract infections, surgical site infections, pneumonia and 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: We have shown that ACS-NSQIP can be adapted to Australia and there is a plan to widen the programme in NSW.

The role of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics for left-sided laparoscopic and open elective restorative colorectal surgery with and without faecal diversion.

BACKGROUND: There is significant variation in the use of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics prior to left-sided elective colorectal surgery. There has been no consensus internationally. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients were divided into four groups: those who had mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation alone, oral antibiotics alone and no preparation. The main outcome measures included overall, superficial, deep and organ/space surgical site infections. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, ileus and rate of Clostridium difficile. RESULTS: A total of 5729 patients were included for analysis. The overall surgical site infection rate (any superficial, deep or organ/space infection) was significantly lower in the mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics approach when compared to no preparation (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.59, P < 0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics maintained a lower risk of overall surgical site infections. MBP and OAB also had a protective effect on anastomotic leak in both the laparoscopic and open cohorts (laparoscopic multivariable adjusted OR = 0.42 (0.19-0.94), P = 0.035; open multivariable adjusted OR = 0.3 (0.12-0.77), P = 0.012). Mechanical bowel preparation alone and oral antibiotics alone was not associated with a significant decrease in surgical site infections. There was no increase in C. difficile occurrences with the use of oral antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly minimised surgical site infections and anastomotic leak following both laparoscopic and open left-sided restorative colorectal surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation alone did not reduce surgical site infections. There was a trend to reduction in surgical site infections with oral antibiotics alone.