JAMA patient page. Centers of excellence

The Mediating Effect of Operative Approach on Racial Disparities in Bariatric Surgery Complications

INTRODUCTION

A laparoscopic approach to bariatric surgeries confers a favorable side-effect profile as compared to an open approach. However, literature regarding the independent association of race with access to and postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (GS) is scarce.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All RYGB and GS cases recorded in American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program data from 2012 to 2020 were subjected to propensity score matching to assess the independent association between Black self-identified race on access to a laparoscopic approach and postoperative complications. Finally, a series of logistic regressions enabled evaluation of the mediating effect of operative approach on racial disparities in postoperative complications.

RESULTS

55,846 cases of RYGB and 94,209 cases of GS were identified. Following propensity score matching, logistic regression identified Black race as an independent predictor of open approach to RYGB (P < 0.001) and GS (P = 0.019). Black patients had increased incidence of any, minor and severe postoperative complications and unplanned readmissions in both RYGB (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.0412, and P < 0.001, respectively) and GS (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.0037, and P < 0.001, respectively). Open approach to RYGB was identified as a partial mediator of the independent association between Black race and any complication, minor complications, and unplanned readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

This methodology identified racial disparities in complications following RYGB and GS. Interestingly, reduced access to a laparoscopic approach mediated racial disparities in complications following RYGB but not GS. Further research might elucidate upstream determinants of health that catalyze these disparities.

Investing in Skilled Specialists to Grow Hospital Infrastructure for Quality Improvement

OBJECTIVES

Hospitals can reduce labor costs by hiring lowest skill possible for the job, stretching clinical hours, and reducing staff not at bedside. However, these labor constraints designed to reduce costs may paradoxically increase costs. Specialty staff, such as board-certified clinicians, can redesign health systems to evaluate the needs of complex patients and prevent complications. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether investing in skilled specialists for supporting hospital quality infrastructure improves value and performance.

METHODS

We evaluated pressure injury rates as an indicator of performance in a retrospective observational cohort of 55 U.S. academic hospitals from the Vizient clinical database between 2007 and 2012. Pressure injuries were defined by U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicator 3 (PSI-03) for stage 3, 4, and unstageable pressure injuries not present on admission in hospitalized adults. We compared ratios of board-certified wound care nurses per 1000 hospital beds to hospital-acquired pressure injury rates in these hospitals using mixed-effects regression of hospital quarters.

RESULTS

High-performing hospitals invested in prevention infrastructure with skilled specialists and observed performance improvements. Regression indicated that by adding one board-certified wound care nurse per 1000 hospital beds, hospitals had associated decreases in pressure injury rates by -17.7% relative to previous quarters, controlling for other interruptions. Highest performers supplied fewer skilled specialists and achieve improved outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Skilled specialists bring important value to health systems as a representation of investment in infrastructure, and the proportion of these specialists could be scaled relative to the hospital's patient capacity. Policy should support hospitals to make investments in infrastructure to drive down patient costs and improve quality.

Relationship Between Change in Heart Transplant Volume and Outcomes: A National Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although volume-outcome relationships in transplantation have been well-defined, the effects of large changes in center volume are less well understood. The purpose of the current study was to examine the impact of changes in center volume on outcomes after heart transplantation.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed of adult patients undergoing heart transplant between 2000 and 2017 identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Exclusions included annual volume <10. Patients were grouped according to percentage change in center volume from the previous year. Multivariable Cox regression models were adjusted for the significant preoperative variance identified on univariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 29,851 transplants during the study period, 64% were at centers with stable volume (±25% annual change), whereas 10% were performed at contracting (-25% change or more) and 26% were performed at growing (+25% change or more) centers. Average volume was lower with contracting centers compared with stable or growing programs (21 vs 36, P< .001). Thirty-day mortality was greater in decreasing centers (6% vs 4%, P < .001), with more acute rejection treatments at 1y (27% vs 24% P < .001). The adjusted risk of mortality among contracting centers was 1.25 ([1.07-1.46], P= .004), whereas growing centers had unaffected risk (0.90 [0.79-1.02], P= .103). Causes of death were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid growth of transplant center volume has occurred at select centers in the United States without decrement in programmatic outcomes. Decreasing center volume has been associated with poorer outcomes, although the causative nature of this relationship requires further investigation.

Spine centers of excellence: applications for the ambulatory care setting

Centers of excellence (COE) are designed to deliver high-quality, cost-effective healthcare by providing specialized and comprehensive multidisciplinary care for a given condition and have become attractive option to both insurers and healthcare providers given their promise of creating value. The criteria that constitute and define a COE may be delineated by a number of entities with a stake in value-based healthcare delivery including professional societies, the federal government, insurers and businesses seeking to control costs while guaranteeing outcomes for their employees. COEs accomplish this goal through a number of means, the first and most essential of which is centralization of organization wherein a variety of specialists are integrated under a single hospital system to improve communication between providers and decrease overall variability of care delivery. In this system, the patient is tracked throughout the entire spectrum of care from diagnosis, through non-operative or surgical intervention, and postoperative care. The centralized model in turn allows for standardization of protocols and multidisciplinary team input which helps to inform case selection, improve patient screening, make treatment more uniform and ultimately allow for dynamic and continual modification of best practices. This model lends itself particularly well to orthopedic subspecialties where patients often require specialized pre-, intra- and post-operative care from a variety of providers. However, despite their apparent benefits, studies evaluating outcomes after implementation of COEs have been less than favorable, and further research is needed in this area to support their widespread adoption. The growth of the ambulatory surgery center in orthopedics provides a new opportunity for the development, evaluation and evolution of spine COEs. Although the direct value of COEs is yet to be firmly established, they provide guidelines for best practices in outpatient spine surgery and a framework for how spine care can be transitioned safely and effectively to the outpatient setting.

Online Ratings of Neurosurgeons: An Examination of Web Data and its Implications

BACKGROUND

Patient satisfaction ratings are increasingly used for hospital rankings, referral base and physician reimbursement. As such, online physician rating websites (PRWs) are quickly becoming a topic of interest.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the distribution of neurosurgeons' ratings on the 3 most widely used PRWs, and examine factors associated with positive and negative ratings.

METHODS

We used a key term search to identify board-certified neurosurgeons on 3 widely used PRWs: RateMD.com, Healthgrades.com, and Vitals.com. Data were collected on average rating and number of ratings. Demographic, training-related and practice-related data, as well as location of practice, and place of training were also collected.

RESULTS

Data was non-normally distributed (P < .001 for all 3). Having fewer reviews was associated with higher variance in ratings between PRWs for a given surgeon (odds ratio 0.99, P = .001). All surgeons below the 25th percentile with respect to the number of reviews that had been written about them were eliminated. Of the remaining surgeons (n = 3054), the median composite score was 4.11 out of 5, interquartile range (3.69, 4.44). Surgeons had higher median modified composite scores if they were fellowship-trained (P = .0001) or graduated from a top 25 medical school (P = .0117), but not if they graduated from a top 25 residency (P = .1056). Surgeons located in major cities had higher median composite scores (P = .0025).

CONCLUSION

Online ratings for neurosurgeons must be evaluated in context. Median ratings are generally high, but variable between websites. Median scores also vary among regions and practice settings. Higher scores were associated with ranking of medical school, recent graduation, and fellowship training completion.

Global Vascular Guidelines on the Management of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

GUIDELINE SUMMARY

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.

Global vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.

Outcomes at Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence and Non-Designated Centers: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a TRICARE Population

In 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reversed their coverage policy that limited bariatric operations to Centers of Excellence (COE). Data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may not be generalizable to younger, healthier populations; additional data are needed to inform coverage policies for other plans. This retrospective cohort study used the 2010 to 2011 administrative claims data from the TRICARE military healthcare program to evaluate readmission rates, readmission length of stay, and postoperative healthcare costs among patients who had bariatric surgery at a COE versus non-designated centers. Outcomes were reported at 30, 60, and 90 days, and compared using logistic and linear regression models while controlling for age, gender, and military status. A total of 3027 patients underwent bariatric operations (mean age 44.16, 84.11% female). At 30 days, there were no significant differences between patients in COEs (n = 2413) and non-designated centers (n = 614), in readmission rates (4.77%, 4.40%, P = 0.70), mean length of stay (5.5 days, 6.7 days, P = 0.41), or mean postoperative healthcare costs ($754, $962, P = 0.398). There were no significant differences in any outcomes at 60 or 90 days. Combined with concerns related to COE patient access barriers, these findings strengthen the evidence that reject the requirement for bariatric surgeries to be performed at COEs.

Centers of excellence in healthcare institutions: what they are and how to assemble them

BACKGROUND

Centers of excellence-specialized programs within healthcare institutions which supply exceptionally high concentrations of expertise and related resources centered on particular medical areas and delivered in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary fashion-afford many advantages for healthcare providers and the populations they serve. To achieve full value from centers of excellence, proper assembly is an absolute necessity, but guidance is somewhat limited. This effectively forces healthcare providers to pursue establishment largely via trial-and-error, diminishing opportunities for success.

DISCUSSION

Successful development of a center of excellence first requires the acquisition of a detailed understanding of the delivery model and its benefits. Then, concerted actions must be taken on a particular series of administrative and clinical fronts, treating them in prescribed manners to afford synergies which yield an exceptionally high level of care. To reduce hardships associated with acquiring this rather elusive knowledge, remedy shortcomings in the literature, and potentially bolster community health broadly, this article presents information and insights gleaned from Willis-Knighton Health System's extensive experience assembling and operating centers of excellence. This work is intended to educate and enlighten, but most importantly, supply guidance which will permit healthcare establishments to replicate noted processes to realize their own centers of excellence.

CONCLUSIONS

Centers of excellence have the ability to dramatically enhance the depth and breadth of healthcare services available in communities. Given the numerous mutual benefits afforded by this delivery model, it is hoped that the light shed by this article will help healthcare providers better understand centers of excellence and be more capable and confident in associated development initiatives, affording greater opportunities for themselves and their patient populations.