Development of a prospective biliary dashboard to compare performance and surgical cost.

BACKGROUND: Transparency around surgeon level data may align healthcare delivery with quality care for patients. Biliary surgery includes numerous procedures performed by both general surgeons and subspecialists alike. Cholecystectomy is a common surgical procedure and an optimal cohort to measure quality outcomes within a healthcare system. METHODS: Data were collected for 5084 biliary operations performed by 68 surgeons in 11 surgical divisions in a health system including a tertiary academic hospital, two regional community hospitals, and two ambulatory surgery centers. A privacy protected dashboard was developed to compare surgeon performance and cost between July 2018 and June 2022. A sample cohort of patients ≥ 18 years who underwent cholecystectomy were compared by operative time, cost, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: Over 4 years, 4568 cholecystectomy procedures were performed by 57 surgeons. Operations were done by 57 surgeons in four divisions and included 3846 (84.2%) laparoscopic cholecystectomies, 601 (13.2%) laparoscopic cholecystectomies with cholangiogram, and 121 (2.6%) open cholecystectomies. Patients were admitted from the emergency room in 2179 (47.7%) cases while 2389 (52.3%) cases were performed in the ambulatory setting. Individual surgeons were compared to peers for volume, intraoperative data, cost, and outcomes. Cost was lowest at ambulatory surgery centers, yet only 4.2% of elective procedures were performed at these facilities. Prepackaged kits with indocyanine green were more expensive than cholangiograms that used iodinated contrast. The rate of emergency department visits was lowest when cases were performed at ambulatory surgery centers. CONCLUSION: Data generated from clinical dashboards can inform surgeons as to how they compare to peers regarding quality metrics such as cost, time, and complications. In turn, this may guide strategies to standardize care, optimize efficiency, provide cost savings, and improve outcomes for cholecystectomy procedures. Future application of clinical dashboards can assist surgeons and administrators to define value-based care.

A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study compared eSource-enabled versus traditional manual data transcription (non-eSource methods) for the collection of clinical registry information. The primary study objective was to compare the time spent completing registry forms using eSource versus non-eSource methods The secondary objectives were to compare data quality associated with these two data capture methods and the flexibility of the workflows. This study directly addressed fundamental questions relating to eSource adoption: what time-savings can be realized, and to what extent does eSource improve data quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study used time and motion methods to compare eSource versus non-eSource data capture workflows for a single center OB/GYN registry. Direct observation by industrial engineers using specialized computer software captured keystrokes, mouse clicks and video recordings of the study team in their normal work environment completing real-time data collection. RESULTS: The overall average data capture time was reduced with eSource versus non-eSource methods (difference, 151s per case; eSource, 1603s; non-eSource, 1754s; p=0.051). The average data capture time for the demographic data was reduced (difference, 79s per case; eSource, 133s; non-eSource, 213s; p<0.001). This represents a 37% time reduction (95% confidence interval 27% to 47%). eSourced data field transcription errors were also reduced (eSource, 0%; non-eSource, 9%). CONCLUSION: The use of eSource versus traditional data transcription was associated with a significant reduction in data entry time and data quality errors. Further studies in other settings are needed to validate these results.