Monitoring lithium therapy: the impact of a quality improvement programme in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: The study was designed to test an audit-based quality improvement programme (QIP) addressing lithium prescribing and monitoring in UK mental health services. METHODS: A baseline clinical audit was conducted against the following standards: (i) measurement of renal and thyroid function before initiating treatment with lithium and (ii) recommended monitoring of serum lithium and renal and thyroid function during maintenance treatment. A re-audit was conducted at 18 months and a supplementary audit at three years. RESULTS: Data were submitted for patients at baseline (n = 3,373), re-audit (n = 3,647), and supplementary audit (n = 5,683), 57% of whom had bipolar disorder. The baseline findings prompted a patient safety alert issued by the National Patient Safety Agency. By supplementary audit, the proportion of patients having four serum lithium tests over the previous year had increased from 30% at baseline to 48%, and the respective proportions that had two tests of renal function from 55% to 70% and thyroid function from 49% to 66%. Elderly patients and those prescribed a drug known to interact with lithium were not more likely to be monitored in line with the audit standards. Between baseline and supplementary audit, the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder prescribed an antidepressant increased from 36% to 41%. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in biochemical monitoring of lithium treatment were achieved over time with participation in a QIP that included benchmarking of performance against clinical standards and customized change interventions. Nevertheless, gaps remain between the standard and current practice. Antidepressants are frequently prescribed in patients with bipolar disorder despite a paucity of evidence supporting their efficacy.

Valor de los índices de Charlson y la escala de riesgo quirúrgico en el análisis de la mortalidad operatoria / Charlson index and the surgical risk scale in the analysis of surgical mortality

Introducción: Existe controversia sobre cómo valorar los riesgos de mortalidad quirúrgica tras distintas intervenciones. El objetivo de este estudio es valorar los factores operatorios que influyeron en la mortalidad quirúrgica y la capacidad de los índices de Charlson y la Escala de Riesgo Quirúrgico (SRS) en determinar los pacientes de bajo riesgo. Material y métodos: Se incluyeron todos los pacientes que fallecieron en el periodo 2004–2007. Se recogió la puntuación de ambos índices. Se escogió el punto de división entre baja y alta probabilidad de muerte una puntuación de «0» para el índice de Charlson y de «8» para el SRS. Se han establecido tres grupos de riesgo: bajo, cuando el Charlson fue=0 y el SRS fue <8 intermedio cuando el charlson fue 0 y SRS <8 o charlson y srs 8805 8 alto cuando el fue 0 y el SRS ≥8. Se han comparado los factores de riesgo pre-intra-postoperatorios entre los grupos. Resultados: Se intervinieron 72.771 pacientes, de los cuales 7.011 lo fueron en régimen de urgencia. Fallecieron uno de cada 1.455 pacientes en el intraoperatorio y 1 de cada 112 pacientes durante su ingreso hospitalario. Trece (2%) pacientes fallecidos pertenecían al grupo bajo riesgo, 199 (30,7%) al de riesgo intermedio y 434 (67,2%) al de riesgo alto. Se asoció enfermedad cardiaca al grupo de alto riesgo. La urgencia fue un factor determinante que se asoció a la complejidad quirúrgica. En el grupo de bajo riesgo predominó la reintervención y la sepsis como causa de muerte; para el resto de grupos predominó la causa cardiaca. Conclusiones: La combinación del índice de Charlson y el SRS, detectó aquellos pacientes de bajo riesgo de muerte siendo una herramienta útil para auditar los resultados operatorios (AU)

Introduction: There is controversy over how to assess surgical mortality risks after different operations. The purpose of this study was to assess the surgical factors that influenced surgical mortality and the ability of the Charlson Index and The Surgical Risk Scale (SRS) to determine low risk patients. Material and methods: All patients who died during the period 2004–2007 were included. The score of both indices (Charlson and SRS) were recorded. A score of «0» for the Charlson Index and «8» for the SRS were chosen as the cut-off point between a low and high probability of death. Three risk groups were established: Low when the Charlson was =0 and SRS was <8 intermediate when the charlson was 0 and the SRS <8 or charlson and srs 8805 8 high when the was 0 and the SRS ≥8. The risks factors before, during and after surgery were compared between the groups. Results: A total of 72,771 patients were surgically intervened, of which 7011 were urgent. One in every 1455 patients died during surgery and 1 in every 112 died during their hospital stay. Thirteen (2%) patients who died belonged to the low risk group, 199 (30.7%) to the intermediate risk group, and 434 (67.2%) to the high risk group. Heart disease was associated with the high risk group. The urgency of the operation was a determining factor associated with surgical complexity. Re-intervention and sepsis predominated as a cause of death in the low risk group, and in the rest of the groups a cardiac cause was the predominant factor. Conclusions: The combination of the Charlson Index and SRS detected those patients with a low risk of death, thus making it a useful tool to audit surgical results (AU)

[Charlson index and the surgical risk scale in the analysis of surgical mortality]. / Valor de los índices de Charlson y la escala de riesgo quirúrgico en el análisis de la mortalidad operatoria.

INTRODUCTION: There is controversy over how to assess surgical mortality risks after different operations. The purpose of this study was to assess the surgical factors that influenced surgical mortality and the ability of the Charlson Index and The Surgical Risk Scale (SRS) to determine low risk patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who died during the period 2004-2007 were included. The score of both indices (Charlson and SRS) were recorded. A score of «0¼ for the Charlson Index and «8¼ for the SRS were chosen as the cut-off point between a low and high probability of death. Three risk groups were established: Low when the Charlson was =0 and SRS was <8; Intermediate when the Charlson was >0 and the SRS <8 or Charlson=0 and SRS ≥8; and high when the Charlson was>0 and the SRS ≥8. The risks factors before, during and after surgery were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 72,771 patients were surgically intervened, of which 7011 were urgent. One in every 1455 patients died during surgery and 1 in every 112 died during their hospital stay. Thirteen (2%) patients who died belonged to the low risk group, 199 (30.7%) to the intermediate risk group, and 434 (67.2%) to the high risk group. Heart disease was associated with the high risk group. The urgency of the operation was a determining factor associated with surgical complexity. Re-intervention and sepsis predominated as a cause of death in the low risk group, and in the rest of the groups a cardiac cause was the predominant factor. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the Charlson Index and SRS detected those patients with a low risk of death, thus making it a useful tool to audit surgical results.

Factores de riesgo de mortalidad de los pacientes quirúrgicos en un hospital terciario: estudio del registro de pacientes en el periodo 2004¿2006 / Mortality risk factors in surgical patients in a tertiary hospital: a study of patient records in the period 2004¿2006

Objetivo: Determinar los factores de riesgo de mortalidad de los pacientes quirúrgicos. Material y métodos: Se incluyó a todos los pacientes operados que fallecieron en el curso del procedimiento peroperatorio en el periodo 2004¿2006. Se realizó un estudio de corte transversal. Se analizaron variables preoperatorias, intraoperatorias y postoperatorias. Se han analizado los factores de riesgo de muerte en los pacientes intervenidos de urgencia y en los intervenidos electivamente. Se ha realizado un análisis multivariable correlacionando las diferentes variables mediante la prueba de la χ2 de Pearson con un intervalo de confianza del 95%. Resultados: Durante el periodo que abarca el estudio fueron intervenidos 38.815 pacientes con ingreso hospitalario: 6.326 de urgencia y 32.489 de forma electiva. Durante el ingreso hospitalario murió un total de 479 pacientes; 36 intraoperatoriamente y 443 tras la intervención quirúrgica. La hipertensión arterial, la diabetes mellitus y el diagnóstico de neoplasia tuvieron significación estadística con la muerte. Las complicaciones quirúrgicas resultaron significativas para los pacientes que fallecieron en el intraoperatorio. La cirugía de urgencia es un factor de riesgo independiente de mortalidad (5,5% de mortalidad en relación con el 0,4% para la cirugía electiva). Las complicaciones postoperatorias fueron los principales factores de riesgo de mortalidad, en especial la sepsis, los problemas cardíacos y los respiratorios. Conclusiones: La prevención y el correcto tratamiento de todos los factores de riesgo preoperatorios, intraoperatorios y postoperatorios se presume disminuirían de forma significativa los índices de mortalidad y morbilidad de los pacientes intervenidos quirúrgicamente, en especial en aquellos intervenidos de urgencia (AU)

Objective: To determine mortality risk factors in surgical patients. Material and method: A cross-sectional study was carried out on all surgical patients who died while in hospital, over a period of three years (2004¿2006). Pre, intra and postoperative variables were analysed. Comparisons were made between patients operated on as emergencies and elective surgery patients. Multivariate analysis was performed on the pre, intra and postoperative variables, using χ2 of Pearson correlation with a confidence interval of 95%. Results: Surgery was performed on a total of 38 815 patients, of which 6 326 were emergency procedures and 32 489 as elective. There were 479 deaths registered: 36 occurred in the operating theatre and 443 died after the operation. Arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus and cancer were significant causes of death. Intraoperative complications were associated with mortality during the surgical procedure. Emergency surgery was an independent risk factor (mortality, 5.5% vs. 0.4% for elective surgery). Sepsis, cardiac and respiratory related deaths were the main risk factors for postoperative death. Conclusions: Prevention and adequate treatment of perioperative risk factors should significantly reduce morbidity and mortality rates, mainly in those patient operated as emergencies (AU)

[Mortality risk factors in surgical patients in a tertiary hospital: a study of patient records in the period 2004-2006]. / Factores de riesgo de mortalidad de los pacientes quirúrgicos en un hospital terciario: estudio del registro de pacientes en el periodo 2004-2006.

OBJECTIVE: To determine mortality risk factors in surgical patients. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out on all surgical patients who died while in hospital, over a period of three years (2004-2006). Pre, intra and postoperative variables were analysed. Comparisons were made between patients operated on as emergencies and elective surgery patients. Multivariate analysis was performed on the pre, intra and postoperative variables, using chi(2) of Pearson correlation with a confidence interval of 95%. RESULTS: Surgery was performed on a total of 38 815 patients, of which 6 326 were emergency procedures and 32 489 as elective. There were 479 deaths registered: 36 occurred in the operating theatre and 443 died after the operation. Arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus and cancer were significant causes of death. Intraoperative complications were associated with mortality during the surgical procedure. Emergency surgery was an independent risk factor (mortality, 5.5% vs. 0.4% for elective surgery). Sepsis, cardiac and respiratory related deaths were the main risk factors for postoperative death. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention and adequate treatment of perioperative risk factors should significantly reduce morbidity and mortality rates, mainly in those patient operated as emergencies.