Not All Discharge Settings Are Created Equal: Thirty-Day Readmission Risk after Elective Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Discharge to nonhome settings after colorectal resection may increase risk of hospital readmission. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of various discharge dispositions on 30-day readmission after adjusting for confounding demographic and clinical factors. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (2011-2015). PATIENTS: Adults who underwent elective colorectal resection were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty-day hospital readmission risk was measured. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population (n = 97,455) was 58 years; half were men and 78% were white. Seventy percent were discharged home routinely (home without service), 24% to home with organized health services, 5% to skilled nursing facility, 1% to rehabilitation facility, and <1% to long-term care hospital. Overall rate of readmission was 12%; 9% from home without service, 16% from home with organized home health services, 19% from skilled nursing facility, 34% from rehabilitation facility, and 22% from long-term care hospital (p < 0.001). Patients with an intensive care unit stay, more postoperative complications, and longer hospitalization stay were more likely to be discharged to home with organized home health services or to a facility (p < 0.001). Discharge to home with organized home health services, skilled nursing facility, or rehabilitation facility increased multivariable-adjusted readmission risk by 30% (OR = 1.3 (95% CI, 1.3-1.6)), 60% (OR = 1.6 (95% CI, 1.5-1.8)), or 200% (OR = 3.0 (95% CI, 2.5-3.6)). Discharge to long-term care hospital was not associated with higher adjusted readmission risk (OR = 1.2 (95% CI, 0.9-1.6)), despite this group having the highest comorbidity and postoperative complications. Among patients readmitted within 30 days, median time to readmission was significantly different among home without service (n = 7), home with organized home health services (n = 8), skilled nursing facility (n = 8), rehabilitation facility (n = 9), and long-term care hospital (n = 12; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Discharge to home with organized home health services, skilled nursing facility, or rehabilitation facility, but not long-term care hospital, is associated with increased adjusted risk of readmission compared with routine home discharge. Potential targets to decrease readmission include improving transition of care at discharge, improving quality of care after discharge, and improving facility resources. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B272. NO TODAS LAS CONFIGURACIONES DE ALTA SON IGUALES: RIESGOS DE READMISIÓN A 30 DÍAS DESPUÉS DE CIRUGÍA COLORRECTAL ELECTIVA: El alta hospitalaria hacia el domicilio luego de una resección colorrectal puede aumentar el riesgo de readmisión.Determinar el impacto de varias configuraciones diferentes de alta en la readmisión a 30 días luego de ajustar factores demográficos y clínicos.Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo.Los datos se obtuvieron del Consorcio del Sistema de Salud Universitaria (2011-2015).Todos aquellos adultos que se sometieron a una resección colorrectal electiva.Los riesgos de readmisión hospitalaria a 30 días.La edad media de la población estudiada (n = 97,455) fué de 58 años; la mitad eran hombres y un 78% eran blancos. El 70% fueron dados de alta de manera rutinaria (a domicilio sin servicios complementarios), 24% alta a domicilio con servicios de salud organizados, 5% alta hacia un centro con cuidados de enfermería especializada, 1% alta hacia un centro de rehabilitación y <1% alta hacia un hospital con atención a largo plazo. La tasa global de readmisión fué del 12%; nueve por ciento desde domicilios sin servicios complementarios, 16% desde domicilios con servicios de salud organizados, 19% desde un centro de enfermería especializada, 34% desde el centro de rehabilitación y 22% desde un hospital con atención a largo plazo (p <0.001). Los pacientes con estadías en Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, con más complicaciones postoperatorias y con una hospitalización prolongada tenían más probabilidades de ser dados de alta hacia un domicilio con servicios de salud organizados o hacia un centro de rehabilitación (p <0,001). El alta hospitalaria con servicios organizados de atención médica domiciliaria, centros de enfermería especializada o centros de rehabilitación aumentaron el riesgo de readmisión ajustada de múltiples variables en un 30% (OR 1.3, IC 95% 1.3-1.6), 60% (OR 1.6, IC 95% 1.5-1.8), o 200% (OR 3.0, IC 95% 2.5-3.6), respectivamente. El alta hospitalaria a largo plazo no fué asociada con un mayor riesgo de readmisión ajustada (OR 1.2, IC 95% 0.9-1.6), no obstante que este grupo fué el que tuvo las mayores comorbilidades y complicaciones postoperatorias. Entre los pacientes readmitidos dentro de los 30 días, la mediana del tiempo hasta el reingreso fue significativamente diferente entre el domicilio sin servicios complementarios (7), domicilio con servicios de salud organizados (8), el centro de cuidados de enfermería especializada (8), centros de rehabilitación (9) y hospitales con atención a largo plazo (12) (p <0,001).Naturaleza retrospectiva del presente estudio.El alta hospitalaria con servicios de salud domiciliarios organizados, hacia centros de enfermería especializada o hacia centros de rehabilitación se asocian con un mayor riesgo ajustado de readmisión en comparación con el alta domiciliaria de rutina y los hospitales con atención a largo plazo. Los objetivos potenciales para disminuir la readmisión incluyen mejorar la transición de la atención al momento del alta, mejorar la calidad de la atención después del alta y mejorar las diferentes facilidades para los pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B272.

Creation and Institutional Validation of a Readmission Risk Calculator for Elective Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Readmissions reflect adverse patient outcomes, and clinicians currently lack accurate models to predict readmission risk. OBJECTIVE: We sought to create a readmission risk calculator for use in the postoperative setting after elective colon and rectal surgery. DESIGN: Patients were identified from 2012-2014 American College of Surgery-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. A model was created with 60% of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program sample using multivariable logistic regression to stratify patients into low/medium- and high-risk categories. The model was validated with the remaining 40% of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program sample and 2016-2018 institutional data. SETTINGS: The study included both national and institutional data. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent elective abdominal colon or rectal resection were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was readmission within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included reasons for and time interval to readmission. RESULTS: The model discrimination (c-statistic) was 0.76 ((95% CI, 0.75-0.76); p < 0.0001) in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program model creation cohort (n = 50,508), 0.70 ((95% CI, 0.69-0.70); p < 0.0001) in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program validation cohort (n = 33,714), and 0.62 ((95% CI, 0.54-0.70); p = 0.04) in the institutional cohort (n = 400). High risk was designated as ≥8.7% readmission risk. Readmission rates in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and institutional data were 10.7% and 8.8% overall; of patients predicted to be high risk, observed readmission rate was 22.1% in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and 12.4% in the institutional cohorts. Overall median interval from surgery to readmission was 14 days in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and 11 days institutionally. The most common reasons for readmission were organ space infection, bowel obstruction/paralytic ileus, and dehydration in both the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and institutional data. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective observational review. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who undergo elective colon and rectal surgery, use of a readmission risk calculator developed for postoperative use can identify high-risk patients for potential amelioration of modifiable risk factors, more intensive outpatient follow-up, or planned readmission. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B284. CREACIÓN Y VALIDACIÓN INSTITUCIONAL DE UNA CALCULADORA DE RIESGO DE REINGRESO PARA CIRUGÍA COLORRECTAL ELECTIVE: Los reingresos reflejan resultados adversos de los pacientes y los médicos actualmente carecen de modelos precisos para predecir el riesgo de reingreso.Intentamos crear una calculadora de riesgo de readmisión para su uso en el entorno postoperatorio después de una cirugía electiva de colon y recto.Los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección electiva del colon abdominal o rectal se identificaron a partir de los datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica (ACS-NSQIP) del Colegio Americano de Cirugia Nacional 2012-2014. Se creó un modelo con el 60% de la muestra NSQIP utilizando regresión logística multivariable para estratificar a los pacientes en categorías de riesgo bajo / medio y alto. El modelo fue validado con el 40% restante de la muestra NSQIP y datos institucionales 2016-2018.El estudio incluyó datos tanto nacionales como institucionales.El resultado primario fue el reingreso dentro de los 30 días de la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron razones e intervalo de tiempo para el reingreso.La discriminación del modelo (estadística c) fue de 0,76 (IC del 95%: 0,75-0,76, p < 0,0001) en la cohorte de creación del modelo NSQIP (n = 50,508), 0,70 (IC del 95%: 0,69-0,70, p < 0,0001) en la cohorte de validación NSQIP (n = 33,714), y 0,62 (IC del 95%: 0,54-0,70, p = 0,04) en la cohorte institucional (n = 400). Alto riesgo se designó como > 8,7% de riesgo de readmisión. Las tasas de readmisión en NSQIP y los datos institucionales fueron del 10,7% y del 8,8% en general; de pacientes con riesgo alto, la tasa de reingreso observada fue del 22.1% en el NSQIP y del 12.4% en las cohortes institucionales. El intervalo medio general desde la cirugía hasta el reingreso fue de 14 días en NSQIP y 11 días institucionalmente. Las razones más comunes para el reingreso fueron infección del espacio orgánico, obstrucción intestinal / íleo paralítico y deshidratación tanto en NSQIP como en datos institucionales.Esta fue una revisión observacional retrospectiva.Para los pacientes que se someten a cirugía electiva de colon y recto, el uso de una calculadora de riesgo de reingreso desarrollada para el uso postoperatorio puede identificar a los pacientes de alto riesgo para una posible mejora de los factores de riesgo modificables, un seguimiento ambulatorio más intensivo o un reingreso planificado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B284. (Traducción-Dr Yesenia Rojas-Khalil).

Data Accuracy and Predictors of High Ratings of Colon and Rectal Surgeons on an Online Physician Rating Website.

BACKGROUND: Online physician rating Web sites are used by over half of consumers to select doctors. No studies have examined physician rating Web sites for colon and rectal surgeons. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and rating patterns of colon and rectal surgeons on the largest physician rating Web site. DESIGN: Physician characteristics and ratings were collected from a randomly selected sample of 500 from 3043 Healthgrades "colon and rectal surgery specialists." Board certifications were verified with the American Board of Surgery and American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery Web sites. SETTINGS: Data acquisition was completed on July 18, 2018. PATIENTS: Patients were not directly studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was to assess the accuracy of Healthgrades in reporting American Board of Surgery and American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery certification. The secondary outcome was to identify factors associated with high star ratings. RESULTS: A total of 48 (9.6%) of the 500 sampled were incorrectly identified as practicing US surgeons and excluded from subsequent analysis. Healthgrades showed 80.1% agreement with verified board certifications for American Board of Surgery and 85.4% for American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery. The mean star rating was 4.2 of 5.0 (SD = 0.9), and 77 (21.6%) had 5-star ratings. In a multivariable logistic model (p < 0.001), 5-star rating was associated with 1 to 9 years (OR = 2.76; p = 0.04) or >40 years in practice (OR = 3.35; p = 0.04) and fewer reviews (OR = 0.88; p < 0.001). There were no significant associations with surgeon sex, age, geographic region, or board certification. LIMITATIONS: Data were limited to a single physician rating Web site. CONCLUSIONS: In the modern age of healthcare consumerism, physician rating Web sites should be used with caution given inaccuracies. More accurate online resources are needed to inform patient decisions in the selection of specialized colon and rectal surgical care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B91. PRECISIÓN DE DATOS Y PREDICTORES DE ALTAS CALIFICACIONES DE CIRUJANOS DE COLON Y RECTO EN UN SITIO WEB DE CALIFICACIÓN MÉDICA EN LÍNEA: Más de la mitad de los consumidores utilizan los sitios web de calificación de médicos en línea para seleccionar médicos. Ningún estudio ha examinado los sitios web de calificación de médicos para cirujanos de colon y recto.Evaluar la precisión y los patrones de calificación de los cirujanos de colon y recto en el sitio web más grande de calificación de médicos.Las características y calificaciones de los médicos se obtuvieron de una muestra seleccionada al azar de 500 de 3,043 "especialistas en cirugía de colon y recto" de Healthgrades. Las certificaciones del Consejo se verificaron en los sitios web del Consejo Americano de Cirugía y del Consejo Americano de Cirugía de Colon y Recto.La adquisición de datos se completó el 18 de julio de 2018.Los pacientes no fueron estudiados directamente.El resultado primario fue evaluar la precisión de Healthgrades al informar la certificación por el Consejo Americano de Cirugía y por el Consejo Americano de Cirugía de Colon y Recto. El resultado secundario fue identificar factores asociados con altas calificaciones en estrellas.Un total de 48 (9.6%) de la muestra de 500 fueron identificados incorrectamente como cirujanos practicantes de EE. UU. y excluidos del análisis subsecuente. Healthgrades mostró un 80.1% de concordancia con las certificaciones verificadas del Consejo Americano de Cirugía y el 85.4% con el Consejo Americano de Cirugía de Colon y Recto. La calificación promedio de estrellas fue 4.2 / 5 (SD 0.9), y 77 (21.6%) tuvieron calificaciones de 5 estrellas. En un modelo logístico multivariable (p <0.001), la calificación de 5 estrellas se asoció con 1-9 años (OR 2.76, p = 0.04) o más de 40 años en la práctica (OR 3.35, p = 0.04) y menos evaluaciones (OR 0.88, p <0.001). No hubo asociaciones significativas con el género, edad, región geográfica o certificación por los Consejos del cirujano.Los datos se limitaron a un solo sitio web de calificación de médicos.En la era moderna del consumismo en atención médica, los sitios web de calificación de los médicos deben usarse con precaución debido a imprecisiones. Se necesitan recursos en línea más precisos para que las decisiones de los pacientes sean informadas en la selección de atención quirúrgica especializada de colon y recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B91. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva-Velazco).

Distribution of Elective Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis Cases for Ulcerative Colitis: a Study Utilizing the University Health System Consortium Database.

BACKGROUND: Trends and distribution of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) procedures for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are unknown. We examined the frequency, distribution, and volume-outcome relationship for this relatively infrequent procedure using a large national data source. METHODS: Data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) for patients with a primary diagnosis of UC admitted electively and who underwent surgical intervention between 2012 and 2015. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population (n = 6875) was 43 years and 57% were men. Among these, one-third (n = 2307) underwent an IPAA, while 24% (n = 1160) underwent total abdominal colectomy, 16% (n = 1134) underwent proctectomy, and 2% (n = 108) underwent total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy. The frequency of IPAA cases among all elective surgical cases was relatively stable at 33-35% over the study period. A total of 131 hospitals, out of 279 hospitals participating in the UHC (47%), performed IPAA. UHC contains all inpatient data on more than 140 (> 90%) academic medical centers in the US and their affiliates. Most hospitals (101) performed < 5 cases annually. The median number of IPAA cases performed annually was 1.8 [IQR 0.8 - 4.3]. The top 10 hospitals performed one-half (48%) of IPAA cases, but only 18% of another type of complex pelvic dissection cases such as low anterior resection. Short-term postoperative complications after IPAA, however, were similar regardless of IPAA volume. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-half of IPAA cases were performed at only 10 hospitals out of the 131 hospitals performing IPAA in the study. IPAA procedures are infrequently performed by most academic medical centers in the US. The redistribution of IPAA procedures, likely a result of previously established referral patterns and centralization, has a potential impact on the training of future colorectal fellows as well as access to care.

Female Representation and Implicit Gender Bias at the 2017 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' Annual Scientific and Tripartite Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Women surgeons are underrepresented in academic surgery and may be subject to implicit gender bias. In colorectal surgery, women comprise 42% of new graduates, but only 19% of Diplomates in the United States. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the representation of women at the 2017 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Scientific and Tripartite Meeting and assessed for implicit gender bias. DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study. SETTING: The study occurred at the 2017 Tripartite Meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the percentage of women in the formal program relative to conference attendees and forms of address. METHODS: Female program representation was quantified by role (moderator or speaker), session type, and topic. Introductions of speakers by moderators were classified as formal (using a professional title) or informal (using name only), and further stratified by gender. RESULTS: Overall, 31% of meeting attendees who are ASCRS members were women, with higher percentages of women as Candidates (44%) and Members (35%) compared with Fellows (24%). Women comprised 28% of moderators (n = 26) and 28% of speakers (n = 80). The highest percentage of women moderators and speakers was in education (48%) and the lowest was in techniques and technology (17%). In the 41 of 47 sessions evaluated, female moderators were more likely than male moderators to use formal introductions (68.7% vs 54.0%, p = 0.02). There was no difference when female moderators formally introduced female versus male speakers (73.9% vs 66.7%, p = 0.52); however, male moderators were significantly less likely to formally introduce a female versus male speaker (36.4% vs 59.2%, p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: Yearly program gender composition may fluctuate. Low numbers in certain areas limit interpretability. Other factors potentially influenced speaker introductions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, program representation of women was similar to meeting demographics, although with low numbers in some topics. An imbalance in the formality of speaker introductions between genders was observed. Awareness of implicit gender bias may improve gender equity and inclusiveness in our specialty. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A802.

Impact of the "Weekend Effect" for Hospital Discharges on Readmissions After Elective Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions after elective colectomy are costly and potentially preventable. It is unknown whether hospital discharge on a weekend impacts readmission risk. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use a national database to determine whether discharge on a weekend versus weekday impacts the risk of readmission, and to determine what discharge-related factors impact this risk. DESIGN: This investigation is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Data were derived from the University HealthSystem Consortium, PATIENTS:: Adults who underwent elective colectomy from 2011 to 2015 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was the 30-day hospital readmission rate. RESULTS: Of the 76,031 patients who survived the index hospitalization, the mean age of the study population was 58 years; half were men and more than 75% were white. Overall, 20,829 (27%) were discharged on the weekend, and the remaining 55,202 (73%) were discharged on weekdays. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 10.5%; 8.9% for those discharged on the weekend vs 11.1% for those discharged during the weekday (unadjusted OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.83). The adjusted readmission risk was lower for patients discharged home without services (routine, without organized home health service) on a weekend compared with on a weekday (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; readmission rates, 7.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001); however, the combination of weekend discharge and the need for home services increased readmission risk (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.55; readmission rate, 16.2% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001). Although patients discharged to rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities were at an increased risk of readmission compared with those discharged to home, there was no additive increase in risk of readmission for weekend discharge. LIMITATIONS: Data did not capture readmission beyond 30 days or to nonindex hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged on a weekend following elective colectomy were at increased risk of readmission compared with patients discharged on a weekday if they required organized home health services. Further prospective studies are needed to identify areas of intervention to improve the discharge infrastructure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A799.