Risk-Adjusted Mortality Rates as a Quality Proxy Outperform Volume in Surgical Oncology—A New Perspective on Hospital Centralization Using National Population-Based Data

PURPOSE Despite a long-known association between annual hospital volume and outcome, little progress has been made in shifting high-risk surgery to safer hospitals. This study investigates whether the risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) could serve as a stronger proxy for surgical quality than volume. METHODS We included all patients who underwent complex oncologic surgeries in Germany between 2010 and 2018 for any of five major cancer types, splitting the data into training (2010-2015) and validation sets (2016-2018). For each surgical group, we calculated annual volume and RSMR quintiles in the training set and applied these thresholds to the validation set. We studied the overlap between the two systems, modeled a market exit of low-performing hospitals, and compared effectiveness and efficiency of volume- and RSMR-based rankings. We compared travel distance or time that would be required to reallocate patients to the nearest hospital with low-mortality ranking for the specific procedure. RESULTS Between 2016 and 2018, 158,079 patients were treated in 974 hospitals. At least 50% of high-volume hospitals were not ranked in the low-mortality group according to RSMR grouping. In an RSMR centralization model, an average of 32 patients undergoing complex oncologic surgery would need to relocate to a low-mortality hospital to save one life, whereas 47 would need to relocate to a high-volume hospital. Mean difference in travel times between the nearest hospital to the hospital that performed surgery ranged from 10 minutes for colorectal cancer to 24 minutes for pancreatic cancer. Centralization on the basis of RSMR compared with volume would ensure lower median travel times for all cancer types, and these times would be lower than those observed. CONCLUSION RSMR is a promising proxy for measuring surgical quality. It outperforms volume in effectiveness, efficiency, and hospital availability for patients.

Racial Disparity in the Surgical Management of Diverticular Disease

Introduction Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has clearly been associated with improved colorectal surgery outcomes, not all populations benefit from this approach. Using a national database, we analyzed both, the trend in the utilization of MIS for diverticulitis and differences in utilization by race. Methods Colon-targeted participant user files (PUFs) from 2012 to 18 were linked to respective PUFs in National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. Patients undergoing colectomy for acute diverticulitis or chronic diverticular disease were included. Surgical approach was stratified by race and year. To adjust for confounding and estimate the association of covariates with approach, data were fit using multivariable binary logistic regression main effects model. Using a joint effects model, we evaluated whether the odds of a particular approach over time was differentially affected by race. Results Of the 46 713 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 83% were white, with 7% black and 10% other. Over the study period, there was a decrease in the rate of open colectomy of about 5% P < .001, and increase in the rate of utilization of laparoscopic and robotic approaches (RC) P < .0001. After adjusting for confounders, black race was associated with open surgery P < .0001. Conclusion There is disparity in the utilization of MIS for diverticulitis. Further research into the reasons for this disparity is critical to ensure known benefits of MIC are realized across all races.

Background for the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery and patient outcomes

Background: To facilitate early postoperative recovery of surgical patients, various efforts have been made to develop effective treatment methods since 1990; moreover, these efforts have not been limited to surgical techniques and include multiple aspects of the entire treatment process. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a surgical quality improvement project that has advanced substantially since it was first introduced in 1995 and has now been firmly established in the field of perioperative care.Current Concepts: ERAS consists of many components that cover each stage before, during, and after surgery, and its clinical application changes according to the results of evidence-based research for each item. To date, more than 20 ERAS guidelines have been created for each disease, and more guidelines are expected in the future. Many studies have reported that ERAS is associated with meaningful improvements in clinical outcomes and reductions of medical costs in many surgical fields.Discussion and Conclusion: ERAS remains a work in progress, and continuous research and improvement is needed in relation to the components, areas of application, audit of compliance and results, education, and a multidisciplinary approach.

P-OGC53 Dashboarding for real-time analysis of oesophagogastric outcomes data

Background The typical paradigm for surgical service evaluation is intermittent audit based on perceived clinical need and mandated requirements. A better model would be monitoring patient outcomes automatically in real-time, with up-to-date cumulative frequencies of key surgical performance indicators such as surgical quality and morbidity, as changes in performance could be detected and reacted to at an earlier stage. This study aimed to develop a dashboarding technology to support real-time visualisation of prospectively maintained oesophagogastric cancer surgery data. Methods CODA is a bespoke databank (implemented in MS SQL Server, with HTML, C# and JavaScript) for oesophagogastric cancer care at our centre. We built on a custom dashboard interface for displaying this information in real-time, using Shiny for R and Tableau. We identified the key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor in the dashboard, and defined benchmarks based on accepted standards, or our prevailing performance (based on 448 consecutive patients who underwent oesophagectomy between 2015 – 2020). The domains selected were surgical quality, length of stay, early mortality, and priority complications. Complications were defined according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Results For surgical quality, our benchmarks based on prevailing performance were (i) &gt;90% &gt;15 lymph node yield (ii) &lt;2-5% longitudinal R1 (iii) &lt;20-30% CRM R1. For length of stay, our benchmarks were (i) &gt;33% meeting 8 day discharge target (ii) &lt;15% missing target discharge without a medical complication (iii) &lt;20% staying longer than two weeks. For 30 & 90 day mortality, our benchmarks were 2% and 4% respectively. For complications, two sets were identified: (i) common complications (occurring at &gt; 2 / year, monitored 2-yearly) (ii) impactful complications (&gt;1 / year, &gt;1 week median additional stay, monitored 5-yearly) Conclusions The CODA dashboard provides real-time appraisal of oesophagogastric cancer surgery practice, highlighting changes in performance and providing opportunity for early intervention. The platform can be used for personal, departmental or inter-institutional service evaluation. The KPIs will be extended to oesophagogastric cancer survival as the test set matures. The interface and wider benefits of CODA implementation are presented, together with the dissemination plan for use in other oesophagogastric centres.