Cost Drivers of Elective Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery is expensive. Few studies have evaluated complications as an economic cost driver, and there is little evidence comparing multiple cost drivers of colorectal surgery to determine the most effective means of reducing total cost. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effects of surgical techniques, use of enhanced recovery protocols, and presence or absence of complications on the total cost of hospitalization for elective colorectal surgery. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort analysis using data from 2011 to 2018 was performed. The primary end point was a mean cost per hospitalization. The cost was compared between patients who experienced minimally invasive versus open surgeries, enhanced recovery after surgery protocols versus not, and complications versus none. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a university-affiliated teaching hospital in the Northeastern United States. PATIENTS: Adult patients who have undergone elective colorectal surgery were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome for this study was the mean cost per hospitalization calculated using inpatient cost based on the total cost of the episode of care. RESULTS: A total of 1039 patients met the criteria for inclusion. The average cost of all hospitalizations was $19,801. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that enhanced recovery protocols substantially lowered the cost of care by $6392 ( p = 0.001), whereas complications increased the cost of care by $16,780 per episode ( p < 0.001). When complications occurred, enhanced recovery protocols reduced the cost by $17,963 ( p = 0.010). LIMITATIONS: This retrospective cohort study performed at a single institution has inherent limitations, including confounding and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: For elective colorectal surgery, complications are associated with significantly increased costs. Avoiding complications should be a priority to reduce costs. Enhanced recovery protocols are associated with significantly reduced costs. Surgeons should focus future research efforts on improving protocols and processes that decrease postoperative complications to improve patient outcomes and to reduce costs associated with elective colorectal hospitalizations. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B927 . FACTORES DE COSTO DE LA CIRUGA ELECTIVA DE COLON Y RECTO UN ANLISIS DE COHORTE RETROSPECTIVE: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía colorrectal es costosa. Pocos estudios han examinado las complicaciones como un factor de costo económico, y hay poca evidencia que compare múltiples factores de costo de la cirugía colorrectal para determinar los medios más efectivos para reducir el costo total.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo determinar los efectos de las técnicas quirúrgicas, el uso de protocolos de enhanced recovery y la presencia o ausencia de complicaciones en el costo total de hospitalización por cirugía colorrectal electiva.DISEÑO:Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo de cohortes utilizando data del 2011-2018. El punto principal fue el costo medio por hospitalización. Se comparó el costo entre los pacientes que experimentaron: cirugías mínimamente invasivas versus abiertas, protocolos de enhanced recovery después de la cirugía versus no, y complicaciones versus no.FUENTE DE DATOS:Se consultó la base de datos financiera y contable del hospital y el registro médico electrónico para la obtencion de datos.ENTORNO CLINICO:Este estudio se realizó en un hospital docente afiliado a una universidad en el noreste de los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal de este estudio fue el costo medio por hospitalización calculado utilizando el costo de hospitalización basado en el costo total del episodio de atención.RESULTADOS:Un total de 1.039 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. El costo promedio de todas las hospitalizaciones fue de $19801. El análisis multivariante demostró que los protocolos de enhanced recovery redujeron sustancialmente el costo de la atención en $6392 ( p = 0,001), mientras que las complicaciones aumentaron el costo en $16780 por episodio ( p < 0,001). Cuando ocurrieron complicaciones, los protocolos de enhanced recovery redujeron el costo en $17963 ( p = 0,010).LIMITACIONES:Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo realizado en una sola institución y tiene limitaciones inherentes que incluyen confusión y sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B927 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Defining Risk and Risk Factors for Unplanned ICU Admission of Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned ICU admissions (up-ICUad) are associated with poor outcomes. It is difficult to identify who is at risk for up-ICUad in trauma patients. This study aimed to identify injury patterns and comorbidities associated with up-ICUad and develop a predictive tool for who is at risk. METHODS: A retrospective study compared trauma patients admitted to the floor who experienced an up-ICUad to similar patients without an up-ICUad. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression identified independent risk factors associated with up-ICUad. Based on those factors, a Risk Score (RS) was created and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: 2.15% of the 7206 patients experienced an up-ICUad. The up-ICUad group was older, experienced longer length of stay, and had higher mortality. Age, congestive heart failure, COPD, peptic ulcer disease, mild liver disease, CKD, and significant injuries to the thorax, spine, and lower extremities were independently associated with up-ICUad. A RS equation was created and was used for each patient. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients are at increased risk for up-ICUad based on specific factors. These factors can be used to calculate a RS to determine who is at greatest risk for an up-ICUad which may be helpful for preventing up-ICUad.

Maximizing Learning in the Operating Room: Residents' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Few studies examine how residents can optimize their educational experience in the OR on their terms. This study aimed to examine residents' perceptions of how learners can maximize their education in the OR. METHOD: Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, the authors conducted focus groups with general surgery residents, PGY1-5, followed by semi-structured interviews with attending surgeons from a single, academic medical center. Constant comparison was used to identify themes and explore their relationships. Theoretical sampling was used until saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Residents and attendings participated. Two phases of OR learning were identified, intra-operative and inter-operative. Characters that made optimized learning included control, struggling, and reflection. Residents who practiced self-reflection with their experiences, and were able to articulate this awareness to attendings, felt the OR was an ideal learning environment. Attendings echoed similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Providing residents with a method of maximizing OR learning is critical to postgraduate clinical education. Currently, observation passively morphs into active learning and eventually independent operating in the OR. However, residents who practice self-regulated learning, and are able to discuss their educational goals with attendings, seem to find the OR a better learning environment and progress to independence more quickly. This was echoed by practicing attendings. Providing residents with a generalizable, self-regulated learning framework specific to operative educational experiences could maximize learning potential and expedite resident progression in the OR.

Using performance frontiers to differentiate elective and capacity-based surgical services.

BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery (ACS) model of care delivery has many benefits. However, since the ACS surgeon has limited control over the volume, timing, and complexity of cases, traditional metrics of operating room (OR) efficiency almost always measure ACS service as "inefficient." The current study examines an alternative method-performance fronts-of evaluating changes in efficiency and tests the following hypotheses: (1) in an institution with a robust ACS service, performance front methodology is superior to traditional metrics in evaluating OR throughput/efficiency, and (2) introduction of an ACS service with block time allocation will improve OR throughput/efficiency. METHODS: Operating room metrics 1-year pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation were collected. Overall OR efficiency was calculated by mean case volumes for the entire OR and ACS and general surgery (GS) services individually. Detailed analysis of these two specific services was performed by gathering median monthly minutes-in block, out of block, after hours, and opportunity unused. The two services were examined using a traditional measure of efficiency and the "fronts" method. Services were compared with each other and also pre-ACS implementation and post-ACS implementation. RESULTS: Overall OR case volumes increased by 5% (999 ± 50 to 1,043 ± 46: p < 0.05) with almost all of the increase coming through ACS (27 ± 4 to 68 ± 16: p < 0.05). By traditional metrics, ACS had significantly worse median efficiency versus GS in both periods: pre (0.67 [0.66-0.71] vs. 0.80 [0.78-0.81]) and post (0.75 [0.53-0.77] vs. 0.83 [0.84-0.85]) (p < 0.05). As compared with the pre, GS efficiency improved significantly in post (p < 0.05), but ACS efficiency remained unchanged (p > 0.05). The alternative fronts chart demonstrated the more accurate picture with improved efficiency observed for GS, ACS, and combined. CONCLUSION: In an institution with a busy ACS service, the alternative fronts methodology offers a more accurate evaluation of OR efficiency. The provision of an OR for the ACS service improves overall throughput/efficiency.

Delay in ICU transfer is protective against ICU readmission in trauma patients: a naturally controlled experiment.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) readmission-ICU bounce back (ICUbb)-is associated with worse outcomes. Patients not requiring organ system support or intensive nursing are deemed 'ICU discharge ready' and transfer orders are placed. However, actual transfer only occurs when an appropriate, non-ICU bed is available. This is dependent on inherent system inefficiencies resulting in a naturally controlled experiment between when patients actually transfer: Early (<24 hours) or Delayed (>24 hours) transfers, after order placement. This study leverages that natural experiment to determine if additional ICU time is protective against ICUbb. We hypothesize that Delayed transfer is protective against ICUbb. METHODS: Using a retrospective, cohort design, we queried a trauma research repository and electronic medical record during a 10-year period to capture traumatized patients admitted to the ICU. Patients were categorized into Early (<24 hours) or Unintended-Delayed (>24 hours) groups based on actual transfer time after order placement. Patient characteristics (age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare ICUbb rates among Early and Unintended-Delayed groups. RESULTS: Of the 2004 patients who met the criteria, 1690 fell into the Early group, and 314 fell into the Delayed. The Early group was younger (mean age 52±23 vs. 55±22 years), had fewer comorbidities (median CCI score 1 (0, 3) vs. 2 (1, 3)), and was less injured (median ISS 17 (10-22) vs. 17 (13-25)), all p<0.05. Overall, 113 (5.6%) patients experienced ICUbb: Early 109 (6.5%) versus Unintended-Delay 4 (1.3%), p<0.05. By regression analysis, age, CCI, and ISS were independently associated with ICUbb while Delayed transfer was protective. DISCUSSION: Despite higher age, CCI score, and ISS, the Unintended-Delayed group experienced fewer ICUbb. After controlling for age, CCI and ISS, Delayed transfer reduced ICUbb risk by 78%. Specific care elements affording this protection remain to be elucidated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic study.