Bariatric Surgery Efficiency, Safety and Health Outcomes in Government Versus Privately Funded Hospitals.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine if the hospital efficiency, safety and health outcomes are equal in patients who receive bariatric surgery in government-funded hospitals (GFH) versus privately funded hospitals (PFH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Australia and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry of 14,862 procedures (2134 GFH and 12,728 PFH) from 33 hospitals (8 GFH and 25 PFH) performed in Victoria, Australia, between January 1st, 2015, and December 31st, 2020. Outcome measures included the difference in efficacy (weight loss, diabetes remission), safety (defined adverse event and complications) and efficiency (hospital length of stay) between the two health systems. RESULTS: GFH treated a higher risk patient group who were older by a mean (SD) 2.4 years (0.27), P < 0.001; had a mean 9.0 kg (0.6) greater weight at time of surgery, P < 0.001; and a higher prevalence of diabetes at day of surgery OR = 2.57 (CI95%2.29-2.89), P < 0.001. Despite these baseline differences, both GFH and PFH yielded near identical remission of diabetes which was stable up to 4 years post-operatively (57%). There was no statistically significant difference in defined adverse events between the GFH and PFH (OR = 1.24 (CI95% 0.93-1.67), P = 0.14). Both healthcare settings demonstrated that similar covariates affect length of stay (LOS) (diabetes, conversion bariatric procedures and defined adverse event); however, these covariates had a greater effect on LOS in GFH compared to PFH. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery performed in GFH and PFH yields comparable health outcomes (metabolic and weight loss) and safety. There was a small but statistically significant increased LOS following bariatric surgery in GFH.

The length of hospital stay following bariatric surgery in Australia: the impact of patient, procedure, system and surgeon.

BACKGROUND: The length of a patient's stay (LOS) in a hospital is one metric used to compare the quality of care, as a longer LOS may flag higher complication rates or less efficient processes. A meaningful comparison of LOS can only occur if the expected average length of stay (ALOS) is defined first. This study aimed to define the expected ALOS of primary and conversion bariatric surgery in Australia and to quantify the effect of patient, procedure, system, and surgeon factors on ALOS. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Bariatric Surgery Registry of 63 604 bariatric procedures performed in Australia. The primary outcome measure was the expected ALOS for primary and conversion bariatric procedures. The secondary outcome measures quantified the change in ALOS for bariatric surgery resulting from patient, procedure, hospital, and surgeon factors. RESULTS: Uncomplicated primary bariatric surgery had an ALOS (SD) of 2.30 (1.31) days, whereas conversion procedures had an ALOS (SD) of 2.71 (2.75) days yielding a mean difference (SEM) in ALOS of 0.41 (0.05) days, P < 0.001. The occurrence of any defined adverse event extended the ALOS of primary and conversion procedures by 1.14 days (CI 95% 1.04-1.25), P < 0.001 and 2.33 days (CI 95% 1.54-3.11), P < 0.001, respectively. Older age, diabetes, rural home address, surgeon operating volume and hospital case volume increased the ALOS following bariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have defined Australia's expected ALOS following bariatric surgery. Increased patient age, diabetes, rural living, procedural complications and surgeon and hospital case volume exerted a small but significant increase in ALOS. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data.

Towards a national perioperative outcomes registry: A survey of perioperative electronic medical record utilisation to support quality assurance and research at Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network hospitals in Australia.

In Australia, 2.7 million surgical procedures are performed annually. Historically, a lack of perioperative data standardisation and infrastructure has limited pooling of routinely collected data across institutions. We surveyed Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Clinical Trials Network hospitals to investigate current and potential uses of perioperative electronic medical record data for research and quality assurance.A targeted survey was sent to 131 ANZCA Clinical Trials Network-affiliated hospitals in Australia. The primary aim was to map current electronic data collection methods and data utilisation in six domains of the perioperative pathway.The survey response rate was 32%. Electronic data recording in the six domains ranged from 19% to 85%. Where electronic data exist, the ability of anaesthesiology departments to export them for analysis ranged from 27% to 100%. The proportion of departments with access to data exports that are regularly exporting the data for quality assurance or research ranged from 13% to 58%.The existence of a perioperative electronic medical record does not automatically lead to the data being used to measure and improve clinical outcomes. The first barrier is clinician access to data exports. Even when this barrier is overcome, a large gap remains between the proportion of departments able to access data exports and those using the data regularly to inform and improve clinical practice. We believe this gap can be addressed by establishing a national perioperative outcomes registry to lead high-quality multicentre registry research and quality assurance in Australia.

JCAHO preparation: an educational plan.

This article discusses Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) preparedness. A literature search reveals articles discussing varying tactics for addressing JCAHO preparedness (e.g., mock surveys, crossword puzzles, e-mail and paper updates, games, and pocket resource cards). However, no articles address the use of monthly pretests and posttests. This article focuses on the use of pretests and posttests as well as other interventions to prepare staff for the JCAHO tracer methodology.