Do medical specialists accept claims-based Audit and Feedback for quality improvement? A focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a widely used quality improvement (QI) intervention in healthcare. However, not all feedback is accepted by professionals. While claims-based feedback has been previously used for A&F interventions, its acceptance by medical specialists is largely unknown. This study examined medical specialists' acceptance of claims-based A&F for QI. DESIGN: Qualitative design, with focus group discussions. Transcripts were analysed using discourse analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of five online focus group discussions were conducted between April 2021 and September 2022 with 21 medical specialists from varying specialties (urology; paediatric surgery; gynaecology; vascular surgery; orthopaedics and trauma surgery) working in academic or regional hospitals in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Participants described mixed views on using claims-based A&F for QI. Arguments mentioned in favour were (1) A&F stimulates reflective learning and improvement and (2) claims-based A&F is more reliable than other A&F. Arguments in opposition were that (1) A&F is insufficient to create behavioural change; (2) A&F lacks clinically meaningful interpretation; (3) claims data are invalid for feedback on QI; (4) claims-based A&F is unreliable and (5) A&F may be misused by health insurers. Furthermore, participants described several conditions for the implementation of A&F which shape their acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Using claims-based A&F for QI is, for some clinical topics and under certain conditions, accepted by medical specialists. Acceptance of claims-based A&F can be shaped by how A&F is implemented into clinical practice. When designing A&F for QI, it should be considered whether claims data, as the most resource-efficient data source, can be used or whether it is necessary to collect more specific data.

ASGBI trauma committee position statement: a national audit of trauma laparotomy in the UK - an unmet need.

Patients who undergo laparotomy for major trauma are amongst the most critically unwell patients, and they have high morbidity and mortality rates. Despite 20 yr of improvements in resuscitation practices, those who present with hypotension continue to have mortality rates of up to 50%. Currently there is no mechanism for capturing national audit data on these patients, leading to their exclusion from potential quality improvement initiatives. We argue that there is an unmet need for quality assurance in this patient cohort and outline possible mechanisms to address this.

[Inter-radiopharmacy audit, a tool for individual and collective progress]. / L'audit croisé inter-radiopharmacies, un outil de progrès individuel et collectif.

OBJECTIVE: Radiopharmacy is a high-risk hospital pharmacy carried out in a complex regulatory environment. Adopting an audit culture is a priority issue to secure the radiopharmaceutical drug circuit. The objective of the study is to demonstrate the value of cross auditing, a hybrid between internal and third party auditing. METHOD: A 125-item evaluation tool applying to the entire radiopharmacy activity was designed. Two radiopharmacies were audited internally and then a cross-audit was organized between the two units. RESULTS: For one of the units, 12 items were rated differently during the two audits. Four of the ten non-conformities that were not observed during the internal audit were rated as critical by the radiopharmacist auditor. For the second radiopharmacy, 15 items were rated differently, two of which were rated as critical. CONCLUSION: Personal opinion may unintentionally influence a reasoning, but the independence of the auditor during cross auditing is a guarantee of objectivity. It is an alternative to internal audits which have become routine and less efficient and unlike third party audits, the auditor is familiar with the constraints and concerns of the field. The interest of this approach goes beyond the simple evaluation of non-conformities. Cross auditing encourages the sharing of experience and know-how between professionals in the same field. It creates a dynamic collaboration between establishments and contributes to the individual and collective improvement of the safety of the radiopharmaceutical drug circuit.

Can natural language processing be effectively applied for audit data analysis in gynaecological oncology at a UK cancer centre?

BACKGROUND: The British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) has highlighted the disparity of ovarian cancer outcomes in the UK compared to other European countries. Therefore, cancer quality assurance audits and subspecialty training are important in improving the UK standard of care for these patients. The current workforce crisis afflicting the NHS creates difficulty in dedicating teams of clinicians to these audits. We present a single institution study to evaluate if NLP-generated code can improve the efficiency of ovarian cancer and subspeciality reaccreditations audits. We used the chat bot Google Bard to write Visual Basic Applications algorithms that utilise Excel files from electronic health records. METHODS: Primary ovarian cancer data from 2019 to 2022 was retrospectively collected from the Cambridge University Hospital electronic health records. The surgical subspecialty reaccreditation audit analysed the 2022 surgical database. A modular coding approach with Google Bard was applied to generate audit algorithms. The time to complete these current audits was compared against the 2016 ovarian cancer and 2020 subspeciality reaccreditation audits. RESULTS: The previous ovarian cancer audit conducted in 2016 required 3 clinicians for the 135 cases and data collection required 1800 min. Data analysis was completed in 300 min. The current ovarian cancer audit allocated 2 clinicians to the 600 surgical cases. Data collection was completed in 3120 min, 3360 min for code development and 720 min for testing. The 2020 subspecialty reaccreditation audit was completed in 360 min. The 2022 subspecialty reaccreditation audit was completed in 1680 min, with 960 min for code development, 240 for debugging and 480 min for testing. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that NLP-generated code can significantly increase the efficiency of surgical quality assurance audits by eliminating the need for manual data analysis. With the current trajectory of NLP development, increasingly complex algorithms can be developed with minimal programming knowledge.

Medical versus surgical causes of death following colorectal resection: a Queensland Audit of Surgical Mortality (QASM) study.

BACKGROUND: The causes of death following colorectal resection remain poorly explored. Few studies have addressed whether early post-operative mortality is predominantly caused by a patient's medical co-morbidities, or from factors pertaining to the presenting surgical disease process itself. This study analyses data from the Queensland audit of surgical mortality (QASM) to report the causes of in-hospital death following colorectal resection, identifies whether these were due to either medical or surgical factors, and determines the patient characteristics associated with a medical cause of death. METHODS: Through analysis of QASM Surgical Case Forms, the causes of in-hospital death were determined in 750 patients who died in Queensland following colorectal resection between January 2010 and December 2020. Deaths were attributed to a specific medical or surgical cause, with multivariate analysis used to identify independent risk factors associated with a medical cause of death. RESULTS: In total, 395 patients (52.7%) died due to surgical causes and 355 (47.3%) died due to medical causes. Respiratory co-morbidities (OR 1.832, 95% CI: 1.267-2.650), advanced malignancy (OR 1.814, 95% CI: 1.262-2.607), neurological co-morbidities (OR 1.794, 95% CI: 1.168-2.757) and advanced age (OR 1.430, 95% CI: 1.013-2.017) were independent risk factors associated with increased risk of a medical cause of death. CONCLUSION: Even in the absence of complicating surgical factors, a significant number of patients died in hospital following colorectal resection due to their underlying co-morbidities. Multi-disciplinary models of care which allow for the early recognition and treatment of medical complications may reduce post-operative mortality in these patients.

Provision of acute oncology services in the UK: data from the Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit 2022 (SAMBA22).

Acute oncology services (AOS) manage acute cancer-related presentations alongside acute medical teams. This study assessed AOS provision against national peer review measures and the burden of acute cancer-related admissions. The 2022 Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit surveyed UK hospitals, collecting hospital-level and patient-level data for all medical admissions over a 24-h period. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify differences in patient outcomes for cancer-related admissions. Most hospitals (n=120 or 91.6%) reported having an AOS. There was heterogeneity in AOS provision, with many failing to meet peer-review measures. Of the 7,116 patients, 542 (7.6%) were cancer-related admissions. Cancer-related admissions had greater clinical acuity (p<0.05), length of stay (p<0.001) and 14-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR)=3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.41-5.22, p<0.001) compared with other medical admissions. Increasing availability of AOS with integration of ambulatory pathways are vital next steps to improving care for acute cancer-related admissions.

Audit of antimicrobial stewardship in medical inpatients in Waikato, New Zealand 2021.

AIMS: Given the threat of rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR), 10 audit standards were selected to audit antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in secondary care to assess guideline adherence and establish quality improvement initiatives in antimicrobial prescribing. METHODS: Patients were included if they received intravenous (IV) antibiotics across seven medical wards in Waikato or Thames hospitals, New Zealand, in November 2021. Audit standards were defined from the regional antimicrobial prescribing policy and adult antimicrobial guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 205 patients were audited. Microbiological sampling standards were met in 87 of 126 occasions (69.0%). Antimicrobial choices adhered to guidelines in 89 of 163 patients (54.6%), where guidelines were available. Documentation of antimicrobial indications in the medical notes and antimicrobial review at 48 to 72 hours met the standards at over 90%. Only 2 of 13 patients (15.4%) receiving piperacillin/tazobactam or a carbapenem were discussed with Infectious Diseases (ID). Documentation of indications and durations on paper-based medication charts was infrequent, around 12%. Evaluating for health equity, similar results were observed for Maori and non-Maori. CONCLUSIONS: Our audit identified specific areas for AMS quality improvement initiatives. Regular audit should become an essential element of the New Zealand AMS strategy. We believe increased AMS resources are required.

Beyond high-risk: analysis of the outcomes of extreme-risk patients in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit.

Patients who require emergency laparotomy are defined as high risk if their 30-day predicted risk of mortality is ≥ 5%. Despite a large difference in the characteristics of patients with a mortality risk score of between 5% and 50%, these outcomes are aggregated by the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA). Our aim was to describe the outcomes of the cohort of patients at extreme risk of death, which we defined as having a NELA-predicted 30-day mortality of ≥ 50%. All patients enrolled in the NELA database between December 2012 and 2020 were included. We compared patient characteristics; length of hospital stay; rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre; and 90-day survival in extreme-risk groups (predicted ≥ 50%) and high-risk patients (predicted 5-49%). Of 161,337 patients, 5193 (3.2%) had a predicted mortality of ≥ 50%. When patients were further subdivided, 2437 (47%) had predicted mortality of 50-59% (group 50-59); 1484 (29%) predicted mortality of 60-69% (group 60-69); 840 (16%) predicted mortality of 70-79% (group 70-79); and 423 (8%) predicted mortality of ≥ 80% (group 80+). Extreme-risk patients were significantly more likely to have been admitted electively than high-risk patients (p < 0.001). Length of stay increased from a median (IQR [range]) of 26 (16-43 [0-271]) days in group 50-59 to 35 (21-56 [0-368]) days in group 80+, compared with 17 (10-30 [0-1136]) days for high-risk patients. Rates of unplanned return to the operating theatre were higher in extreme-risk groups compared with high-risk patients (11% vs. 8%). The 90-day survival was 43% in group 50-59, 34% in group 60-69, 27% in group 70-79 and 17% in group 80+. These data underscore the need for a differentiated approach when discussing risk with patients at extreme risk of mortality following an emergency laparotomy. Clinicians should focus on patient priorities on quantity and quality of life during informed consent discussions before surgery. Future work should extend beyond the immediate postoperative period to encompass the longer-term outcomes (survival and function) of patients who have emergency laparotomies.

Lessons learned from hip fracture registries - From the Scottish perspective to global practice.

Hip fracture is the most common serious orthopaedic injury affecting older people. In Scotland, 7000 patients sustain a hip fracture each year, and this is projected to rise to 10,300 a year by 2029. In this narrative review, we describe the origin and evolution of the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit, including key elements which have improved hip fracture care and outcomes within Scotland, and the current state of play of hip fracture registries around the world. We go on to discuss future directions for data driven improvements in hip fracture care, including international standardised data collection and a global minimum common dataset for hip fracture registries.

The QuADRANT study: Current status and recommendations for improving uptake and implementation of clinical audit of medical radiological procedures in Europe. The radiotherapy perspective.

BACKGROUND: QuADRANT was a research project funded by the European Commission to evaluate clinical audit uptake and implementation across Europe, with an emphasis on clinical audit as mandated within the BSSD (Basic Safety Standards Directive). AIM: Focusing on the QuADRANT objectives - to obtain an overview of European clinical audit activity; identify good practices, resources, barriers and challenges; provide guidance and recommendations going forwards; identify the potential for European Union action on quality and safety focusing on the field of radiotherapy. RESULTS: A pan-European survey, expert interviews and a literature review conducted within the framework of the QuADRANT project indicated that developments in national clinical audit infrastructure are required. While in radiotherapy, there is a strong tradition and high level of experience of dosimetry audits and well-established practice through the IAEA's QUATRO audits, few countries have a well-established comprehensive clinical audit programme or international/national initiatives on tumour specific clinical audits. Even if sparse, the experience from countries with established system of quality audits can be used as role-models for national professional societies to promote clinical audit implementation. However, resource allocation and national prioritisation of clinical audit are needed in many countries. National and international societies should take the initiative to promote and facilitate training and resources (guidelines, experts, courses) for clinical audits. Enablers used to enhance clinical audit participation are not widely employed. Development of hospital accreditation programmes can facilitate clinical audit uptake. An active and formalised role for patients in clinical audit practice and policy development is recommended. Because there is a persisting variation in European awareness of BSSD clinical audit requirements, work is needed to improve dissemination of information on the legislative requirements relating to clinical audit in the BSSD and in relation to inspection processes. The aim is to ensure these include clinical audit and that they encompass all clinics and specialties involved in medical applications using ionising radiation. CONCLUSION: QuADRANT provided an overarching view of clinical audit practice in Europe, with all its related aspects. Unfortunately, it showed that the awareness of the BSSD requirements for clinical audit are highly variable. Therefore, there is an urgent need to dedicate efforts towards ensuring that regulatory inspections also incorporate an assessment of clinical audit program(s), affecting all aspects of clinical work and specialties involved in patient exposure to ionising radiation.