Comparing definitions of outpatient surgery: Implications for quality measurement

Perioperative Management of Cleft Lip Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have focused on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. We sought to evaluate the available data on this topic to create evidence-based clinical guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic review, meta-analysis.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed focusing on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. Studies were included if they included comparative data. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Systematic review of literature regarding wound closure, postoperative arm restraints, perioperative antibiotics, outpatient or ambulatory surgery, or feeding restrictions postoperatively.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria after initial screening of 3103 articles. This included 8 articles on wound closure, 2 on postoperative restraints, one on perioperative antibiotics, 6 on outpatient surgery, and 6 on postoperative feeding. Meta-analysis could be performed on dehiscence rates with postoperative feeding regimen and readmission rates after outpatient versus inpatient lip repair. There were few studies with low risk of bias. Outpatient cleft lip repair does not increase readmission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.28-3.07). Allowing postoperative breastfeeding or bottle-feeding does not increase dehiscence (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.19-1.95). There was no evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of available data, there is no evidence of a clearly superior closure material. The evidence does not support use of postoperative arm restraints. The evidence does not support the use of preoperative nasal swabs for antibiotic guidance. With careful patient selection, outpatient cleft lip repair appears safe. The evidence supports immediate breastfeeding or bottle-feeding after cleft lip repair.

Association of Frailty and Postoperative Complications With Unplanned Readmissions After Elective Outpatient Surgery

IMPORTANCE

Ambulatory surgery in geriatric populations is increasingly prevalent. Prior studies have demonstrated the association between frailty and readmissions in the inpatient setting. However, few data exist regarding the association between frailty and readmissions after outpatient procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between frailty and 30-day unplanned readmissions after elective outpatient surgical procedures as well as the potential mediation of surgical complications.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this retrospective cohort study of elective outpatient procedures from 2012 and 2013 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, 417 840 patients who underwent elective outpatient procedures were stratified into cohorts of individuals with a length of stay (LOS) of 0 days (LOS = 0) and those with a LOS of 1 or more days (LOS ≥ 1). Statistical analysis was performed from June 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

EXPOSURE

Frailty, as measured by the Risk Analysis Index.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission.

RESULTS

Of the 417 840 patients in this study, 59.2% were women and unplanned readmission occurred in 2.3% of the cohort overall (LOS = 0, 2.0%; LOS ≥ 1, 3.4%). Frail patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [15.5] years) were more likely than nonfrail patients (mean [SD] age, 35.0 [15.8] years) to have an unplanned readmission in both LOS cohorts (LOS = 0, 8.3% vs 1.9%; LOS ≥ 1, 8.5% vs 3.2%; P < .001). Frail patients were also more likely than nonfrail patients to experience complications in both cohorts (LOS = 0, 6.9% vs 2.5%; LOS ≥ 1, 9.8% vs 4.6%; P < .001). In multivariate analysis, frailty doubled the risk of unplanned readmission (LOS = 0: adjusted relative risk [RR], 2.1; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3; LOS ≥ 1: adjusted RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1). Complications occurred in 3.1% of the entire cohort, and frailty was associated with increased risk of complications (unadjusted RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.4-2.8). Mediation analysis confirmed that complications are a significant mediator in the association between frailty and readmissions; however, it also indicated that the association of frailty with readmission was only partially mediated by complications (LOS = 0, 22.8%; LOS ≥ 1, 29.3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that frailty is a significant risk factor for unplanned readmission after elective outpatient surgery both independently and when partially mediated through increased complications. Screening for frailty might inform the development of interventions to decrease unplanned readmissions, including those for outpatient procedures.

Budget impact analysis of the new reimbursement policy for day surgery in Thailand

Introduction

In 2017 the Thai Ministry of Public Health proposed a new financing mechanism to promote day surgery under the Universal Coverage Scheme – the main public insurance arrangement for Thais. The key feature of the policy is health facilities performing day surgery can claim the treatment expense based on relative weight (RW) instead of adjusted RW (adjRW). Procedures for 12 diseases (so-called “candidate procedures”) are eligible for the new reimbursement. The objective of this study was to assess the current day surgery situation in Thailand and analyze potential budget impact from the new policy.

Methods

A quantitative cross-section design was employed. Individual inpatient records of the Universal Coverage Scheme during 2014–2016 were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and simulation analyses were applied. The analyses were divided into three subtopics: 1) case volume and expense claim, 2) utilization across facilities, and 3) case mix index and budget impact.

Results

Overall, day surgery accounted for 4.8% of admissions with candidate procedures. Inguinal hernias, hemorrhoids, and common bile duct stones caused the largest sum of admission numbers and admission days. Currently, the annual reimbursement for candidate procedures treated as inpatient cases is around 290.8 million Baht (US$ 8.8 million), with about 12.4 million Baht (US$ 0.38 million) for day surgery cases. If all candidate procedures were performed as day surgery and diagnostic-related groups (DRG) version 6 was applied, the incremental budget would amount to 1.9 million Baht (US$ 58,903).

Conclusions

The new reimbursement policy will likely lead to minimal budget burden. Even in the case of maximal uptake of the policy, the needed budget would increase by just 15%. The marginal budget increment was explained by the infinitesimal RW–adjRW difference. Apart from the financial measure, other qualitative aspects of the policy, such as infrastructure and health staff readiness, should be explored.