Hospital readmissions and emergency department visits following laparoscopic and open colon resection for cancer

90-Day Emergency Department Utilization and Readmission Rate After Full-Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Multicenter, Retrospective Analysis of 821 Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Emergency department (ED) utilization and readmission rates after spine surgery are common quality of care measures. Limited data exist on the evaluation of quality indicators after full-endoscopic spine surgery (FESS). The objective of this study was to detect rates, causes, and risk factors for unplanned postoperative clinic utilization after FESS.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter analysis assessed ED utilization and clinic readmission rates after FESS performed between 01/2014 and 04/2023 for degenerative spinal pathologies. Outcome measures were ED utilizations, hospital readmissions, and revision surgeries within 90 days postsurgery.

RESULTS

Our cohort includes 821 patients averaging 59 years of age, who underwent FESS. Most procedures targeted the lumbar or sacral spine (85.75%) while a small fraction involved the cervical spine (10.11%). The most common procedures were lumbar unilateral laminotomies for bilateral decompression (40.56%) and lumbar transforaminal discectomies (25.58%). Within 90 days postsurgery, 8.0% of patients revisited the ED for surgical complications. A total of 2.2% of patients were readmitted to a hospital of which 1.9% required revision surgery. Primary reasons for ED visits and clinic readmissions were postoperative pain exacerbation, transient neurogenic bladder dysfunction, and recurrent disk herniations. Our multivariate regression analysis revealed that female patients had a significantly higher likelihood of using the ED ( P = .046; odds ratio: 1.77, 95% CI 1.01-3.1 5.69% vs 10.33%). Factors such as age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, comorbidities, and spanned spinal levels did not significantly predict postoperative ED utilization.

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates the safety of FESS, as evidenced by acceptable rates of ED utilization, clinic readmission, and revision surgery. Future studies are needed to further elucidate the safety profile of FESS in comparison with traditional spinal procedures.

Bias in Prediction Models to Identify Patients With Colorectal Cancer at High Risk for Readmission After Resection

PURPOSE

Machine learning algorithms are used for predictive modeling in medicine, but studies often do not evaluate or report on the potential biases of the models. Our purpose was to develop clinical prediction models for readmission after surgery in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to examine their potential for racial bias.

METHODS

We used the 2012-2020 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Participant Use File and Targeted Colectomy File. Patients were categorized into four race groups - White, Black or African American, Other, and Unknown/Not Reported. Potential predictive features were identified from studies of risk factors of 30-day readmission in CRC patients. We compared four machine learning-based methods - logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), random forest (RF), and XGBoost (XGB). Model bias was assessed using false negative rate (FNR) difference, false positive rate (FPR) difference, and disparate impact.

RESULTS

In all, 112,077 patients were included, 67.2% of whom were White, 9.2% Black, 5.6% Other race, and 18% with race not recorded. There were significant differences in the AUROC, FPR and FNR between race groups across all models. Notably, patients in the 'Other' race category had higher FNR compared to Black patients in all but the XGB model, while Black patients had higher FPR than White patients in some models. Patients in the 'Other' category consistently had the lowest FPR. Applying the 80% rule for disparate impact, the models consistently met the threshold for unfairness for the 'Other' race category.

CONCLUSION

Predictive models for 30-day readmission after colorectal surgery may perform unequally for different race groups, potentially propagating to inequalities in delivery of care and patient outcomes if the predictions from these models are used to direct care.

Maximizing Readmission Reduction in Colon Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

Multiple studies have identified risk factors for readmission in colon cancer patients. We need to determine which risk factors, when modified, produce the greatest decrease in readmission for patients so that limited resources can be used most effectively by implementing targeted evidence-based performance improvements. We determined the potential impact of various modifiable risk factors on reducing 30-d readmission in colon cancer patients.

METHODS

We used a cohort design with the 2012-2020 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to track colon cancer patients for 30 d following surgery. Colon cancer patients who received colectomies and were discharged alive were included. Readmission (to the same or another hospital) for any reason within 30 d of the resection was the outcome measure. Modifiable risk factors were the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open colectomy, mechanical bowel preparation, preoperative antibiotic use, functional status, smoking, complications (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, infections, anastomotic leakage, prolonged postoperative ileus, extensive blood loss, and sepsis), serum albumin, and hematocrit.

RESULTS

111,691 patients with colon cancer were included in the analysis. About half of the patients were male, most were aged 75 or older, and were discharged home. Overall, 11,138 patients (10.0%) were readmitted within 30 d of surgery. In adjusted analysis, the reduction in readmission would be largest by preventing both prolonged ileus and by switching open colectomies to MIS (28.0% relative reduction) followed by preventing anastomotic leaks (6.2% relative reduction). Improving other modifiable risk factors would have a more limited impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The focus of readmission reduction should be on preventing prolonged ileus, increasing the use of MIS, and preventing anastomotic leaks.

Evaluation of emergency department treat-and-release encounters after major gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge.

RESULTS

Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital health intervention to support patients with colorectal cancer prepare for and recover from surgery: study protocol of the RecoverEsupport randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Surgery is the most common treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) and can cause relative long average length of stay (LOS) and high risks of unplanned readmissions and complications. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways can reduce the LOS and postsurgical complications. Digital health interventions provide a flexible and low-cost way of supporting patients to achieve this. This protocol describes a trial aiming to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverEsupport digital health intervention in decreasing the hospital LOS in patients undergoing CRC surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The two-arm randomised controlled trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverEsupport digital health intervention compared with usual care (control) in patients with CRC. The intervention consists of a website and a series of automatic prompts and alerts to support patients to adhere to the patient-led ERAS recommendations. The primary trial outcome is the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes include days alive and out of hospital; emergency department presentations; quality of life; patient knowledge and behaviours related to the ERAS recommendations; health service utilisation; and intervention acceptability and use.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by the Hunter New England Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00869) and the University of Newcastle Ethics Committee (H-2015-0364). Trial findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. If the intervention is effective, the research team will facilitate its adoption within the Local Health District for widespread adaptation and implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621001533886.

Main reasons and predictive factors of cancer-related emergency department visits in a Hungarian tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

Identifying the reasons for the Emergency Department (ED) visit of patients with cancer would be essential for possibly decreasing the burden of ED use. The aim of our study was to analyze the distribution of the demographic and clinical parameters of patients with cancer based on the reasons for the ED visits and to identify possible predictive factors for their visits.

METHODS

This retrospective study, carried out at a large, public tertiary hospital in Hungary, involved all patients 18 years or over, who had received a cancer diagnosis latest within five years of their visit to the ED in 2018. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected partly via automated data collection and partly through the manual chart review by a team of experts, including six emergency physicians and an oncologist. Five main reasons for the ED visit were hypothesized, pilot-tested, then identified, including those with cancer-related ED visits (whose visit was unambiguously related to their cancer illness) and those with non-cancer-related ED visits (whose visit to the ED was in no way associated with their cancer illness.) A descriptive approach was used for data analysis and binary logistic regression was used to determine predictive factors for patients with cancer visiting the ED.

RESULTS

23.2% of the altogether 2383 ED visits were directly cancer-related, and these patients had a significantly worse overall survival than patients with non-cancer related ED visits. Age 65 or below (Odds Ratio: 1.51), presence of two more comorbidities (OR: 7.14), dyspnea as chief complaint (OR: 1.52), respiratory cancer (OR: 3.37), any prior chemotherapy (OR: 1.8), any prior immune/biological treatment (OR: 2.21), any prior Best Supportive Care/palliative care (OR: 19.06), or any prior hospice care (OR: 9.43), and hospitalization (OR:2.88) were independent risk factors for the ED visit to be cancer-related.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to identify independent predictive factors of ED use by patients with cancer based on the chief cause of their visit in the Central and Eastern European region. These results may provide important information for the development of algorithms intended to identify the needs of care of patients with cancer at the ED.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Prevent Surgical Site Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with increased costs. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy has previously been shown to reduce surgical site infection compared with conventional dressings. However, negative pressure wound therapy application is met with hesitancy because of its additional cost.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine whether the application of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy after elective colorectal surgery is cost-effective.

DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressing was completed using a Markov microsimulation model. A publicly funded single health care payer perspective was adopted across a lifetime horizon.

SETTING

This study was conducted using in-hospital elective colorectal surgery.

PATIENTS

The base case was an age-, sex-, and comorbidity-standardized patient undergoing open elective colorectal surgery.

INTERVENTION

Negative pressure wound therapy was applied postoperatively over closed incisions.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary outcomes of interest were the number of surgical site infections, total costs, and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Secondary outcomes included emergency department presentation, hospital readmission, nursing wound care utilization, fascial dehiscence, incisional hernia, and non-surgical site infection-related complications.

RESULTS

We found that prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, standardized to 1000 patients, prevented 51 surgical site infections, 3 fascial dehiscences, 10 incisional hernias, 22 emergency department presentations, and 6 hospital readmissions. This resulted in a total cost saving of $17,066 and 92.2 quality-adjusted life-years gained ($17.07 and 0.09 quality-adjusted life-years gained on average per patient). When the patients' risk of surgical site infections was greater than 3.2%, negative pressure wound therapy was a cost-effective strategy at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-years.

LIMITATIONS

We did not model for societal perspective, emergent presentations of incarcerated hernias, or complications with hernia repair. The results of this model are reliant on the published negative pressure wound therapy efficacy and may change when additional data arise.

CONCLUSION

The use of negative pressure wound therapy is the dominant strategy with improved outcomes and reduced costs compared with conventional dressing in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, particularly in at-risk patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B782.

ANLISIS DE RENTABILIDAD DE LA TERAPIA DE PRESIN NEGATIVA PARA PREVENIR INFECCIN DEL SITIO QUIRRGICO DESPUS DE CIRUGA COLORRECTAL ELECTIVA

ANTECEDENTES:La infección del sitio quirúrgico es común después de la cirugía colorrectal y se asocia con un aumento de los costos. Anteriormente se demostró que la terapia profiláctica con presión negativa reduce la infección del sitio quirúrgico en comparación con los apósitos convencionales. Sin embargo, el uso de la terapia de presión negativa se encuentra en dudas debido a su costo adicional.OBJETIVO:Determinar si la aplicación de la terapia profiláctic con presión negativa después de la cirugía colorrectal electiva es rentable.DISEÑO:Se completó un análisis de costo-efectividad comparando la terapia profiláctica con presión negativa versus apósito convencional utilizando un modelo de microsimulación de Markov. Se adoptó una perspectiva de pagador único de asistencia sanitaria financiada con fondos públicos a lo largo de toda la vida.AJUSTE:Cirugía colorrectal electiva intrahospitalaria.PACIENTES:El caso base fue un paciente estandarizado por edad, sexo y comorbilidad sometido a cirugía colorrectal abierta electiva.INTERVENCIÓN:Aplicación postoperatoria de terapia de presión negativa sobre incisiones cerradas.RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Los resultados primarios de interés fueron el número de infecciones del sitio quirúrgico, los costos totales y los años de vida ganados ajustados por calidad. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron presentación en la sala de emergencias, reingreso al hospital, la utilización del cuidado de heridas por enfermería, dehiscencia fascial, hernia incisional y complicaciones relacionadas con infecciones del sitio no quirúrgico.RESULTADOS:Estandarizado para 1,000 pacientes, encontramos que la terapia profiláctica con presión negativa previno 51 infecciones del sitio quirúrgico, 3 dehiscencias fasciales, 10 hernias incisionales, 22 presentaciones en la sala de emergencias y 6 reingresos al hospital. Esto resultó en un ahorro total de costos de $ 17.066 y 92.2 años de vida ganados ajustados por calidad ($ 17.07 y 0.09 años de vida ganados ajustados por calidad en promedio por paciente). Cuando el riesgo de infección del sitio quirúrgico de los pacientes era superior al 3,2%, la terapia de presión negativa era una estrategia rentable con una disposición a pagar de 50.000 dólares por años de vida ajustados por calidad.LIMITACIONES:No modelamos para la perspectiva social, presentaciones emergentes de hernias encarceladas o complicaciones con la reparación de hernias. Los resultados de este modelo dependen de la eficacia publicada de la terapia de presión negativa y pueden cambiar cuando surjan más datos.CONCLUSIONES:El uso de la terapia de presión negativa es la estrategia dominante con mejores resultados y costos reducidos en comparación con el apósito convencional en pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal, particularmente en pacientes de riesgo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B782. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Assessment of Cancer Center Variation in Textbook Oncologic Outcomes Following Colectomy for Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Traditional metrics may inadequately represent rates of attaining optimal oncologic care. We evaluated a composite "textbook oncologic outcome" (TOO) to assess the incidence of achieving an "optimal" clinical result after colon adenocarcinoma (CA) resection.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried to identify patients undergoing colectomy for non-metastatic CA between 2010 and 2015. TOO was defined as a margin negative resection with an AJCC compliant lymph node evaluation, no prolonged length of stay (LOS) or 30-day readmission/mortality, as well as receipt of stage appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Among 170,120 patients who underwent colectomy at 1315 hospitals, 93,204 (54.8%) achieved TOO with large variations observed among facilities. While certain factors were achieved nearly universally (R0 margin, 95.6%; no 30-day mortality, 97.2%), avoidance of prolonged LOS (77.3%) and appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy (83.0%) were achieved less consistently. On multivariable analysis, Black race/ethnicity (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.85), Medicaid insurance (OR 0.64, 0.61-0.68), and low-volume facility (< 50/year) (OR 0.83, 0.77-0.89) were associated with decreased likelihood of TOO. Achievement of TOO was associated with improved long-term survival (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.44-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Roughly one-half of patients undergoing resection of CA achieved an optimal clinical outcome. TOO may be a more useful quality metric to assess patient-centric composite outcomes following surgical procedures.

Comparison of Urban-Rural Readmission Rates After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Findings From a Privately Insured Population

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the 30-day readmission rate of a privately insured population diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) who had primary tumor resection in rural and urban communities.

METHODS

Claims data of people aged <65 with a diagnosis of CRC between 2012 and 2016 and enrolled in a private health plan administered by BlueCross BlueShield of Nebraska were analyzed. Readmission was defined as the number of discharged patients who were readmitted within 30 days, divided by all discharged patients. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the factors associated with readmission.

RESULTS

The urban population had a higher readmission rate (11%) than the rural population (8%). Although the adjusted odds ratio showed that there is no difference in readmission between rural and urban residents, patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of >1 were more likely than those without CCI to be readmitted (OR 3.59, 1.41-9.11). Patients with open vs. laparoscopic surgery (OR 2.80, 1.39-5.63) and those with an obstructed or perforated colon vs. none (OR 7.17, 3.75-13.72) were more likely to be readmitted.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission after CRC surgery occurs frequently. Interventions that target the identified risk factors should reduce readmission rates in this privately insured population.

Examining emergency department utilization in the post-foregut surgery patient

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine emergency department (ED) utilization following minimally invasive foregut surgery and determine its impact on costs. Furthermore, we sought to determine their relationship to the index procedure, whether they are preventable, and describe strategies for decreasing unnecessary ED visits.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted for all patients undergoing foregut procedures from January 2018 through June 2019. ED utilization was examined from 0 to 90 days. The proportion of visits related to surgery, preventable visits, and median ED costs were compared between visits occurring 0-30 days (early) versus 31-90 days (delayed) postoperatively as well as occurring from 8 am to 5 pm versus 5 pm to 8 am.

RESULTS

Of 458 patients who underwent foregut surgery, 72.5% were female and the mean age was 60 years old. 92 patients (20%) presented to the ED within 90 days. Of these, 59 patients (64.1%) presented to the ED early versus 33 patients (35.9%) delayed. 56.5% of ED visits occurred during clinic hours. 56 (60.9%) ED visits were related to the procedure and 20 (35.7%) were preventable. The median ED return cost was $970. Early ED visits were significantly more likely to be related to surgery (72.9% vs 39.4%, p = 0.0016). There was no significant difference in the proportion of visits that were preventable (32.6% vs 46.2%, p = 0.3755) and ED return cost did not vary significantly ($995 vs $965, p = 0.43) between early and delayed visits.

CONCLUSIONS

ED visits are common after foregut surgery and represent a financial burden on healthcare. Most visits occur early and are more likely to be related to surgery. Importantly, more than one-third of ED visits related to surgery were preventable and most occurred during clinic hours on weekdays. Providers should consider implementation of strategies to improve outpatient utilization and decrease unnecessary ED visits.

A Case-matched Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Colonic Resection for Colon Cancer: Developing Country Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The open approach to right hemicolectomy remains the most widely adopted, whereas laparoscopic surgery is technically more demanding with possible loss of benefit for lengthy procedures compared with open surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of the laparoscopic versus open surgery for right colon cancer resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent an elective and potentially curative right colectomy for colon cancer between 2015 and 2019 were included and those who underwent emergency surgery, palliative resection, or cytoreductive surgery were excluded. Patients were randomly matched on 1:2 basis for age, disease stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and extent of colectomy (right vs. extended right hemicolectomy, and additional major resection). The analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The outcomes were reported as median (range) or percent as appropriate.

RESULTS

Among 160 patients, 18 were excluded. The final matching included 69 patients. The were no significant differences between the groups regarding patients' age and sex distribution, tumor size, and preoperative serum albumin and hemoglobin. There were 2 conversions (8.7%) to open surgery. Although the operating time for laparoscopic surgery was longer (200 vs. 140 min, P<0.001), it was associated with less blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL, P=0.001) and shorter primary and total hospital stay (4.1 vs. 6.0 days, P<0.001). There were no differences in the rates of severe complications (0% vs. 13%), reoperations (0% vs. 4.3%), readmissions (13% vs. 8.7%), mortality (0% vs. 2.2%), R0 resections (95.7% vs. 97.8%), and lymph node retrieval rate (28 in each group).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach to right colon resection for colon cancer is associated with less operative trauma and quicker recovery compared with open surgery and offers an equivalent oncologic resection.

Surgical patient values frame and modify the impact of risk factors for non-routine postdischarge care: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Adult colorectal surgery patients continue to have high rates of readmissions, despite known risk factors for non-routine postdischarge care (emergency department (ED) visit or rehospitalization) and countless interventions to address these. It is unclear how the difficult-to-quantify patient perspective frames and modifies the impact of these quantifiable risk factors.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified consecutive adult inpatient colorectal surgery patients from 2017 to 2018. This mixed methods study merged data from electronic health records and in-depth patient interviews.

RESULTS

We enrolled 258 participants, surveyed 167, and interviewed 18. Depressive symptoms represent one of many risk factors confirmed to increase non-routine healthcare utilization (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.02-3.37), though the patient perspective explained why these symptoms seemed to greatly impact some patients more than others. Additionally, consistent with patient report, patients with non-routine postdischarge care (26%) were less likely to report communication with their surgical team (80% vs 97%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patient perspectives add depth and understanding of the impact of risk factors on non-routine post-discharge care. This expanded knowledge explains why one patient is more likely to visit an ED close to home whereas another patient might prefer to visit their surgeon's clinic directly. Effective strategies to reduce unplanned postdischarge care should be tailored.

Trends in emergency department utilization following common operations in New York State, 2005-2014

BACKGROUND

ED overutilization is a leading cause of increased healthcare costs and a key target for healthcare reform. ED utilization patterns following common operative procedures are unknown.

METHODS

Using the SPARCS New York (NY) statewide longitudinal administrative database, a longitudinal analysis on 746,633 patients who underwent cholecystectomy (n = 355,368), appendectomy (n = 142,797) or inguinal hernia repair (n = 248,468) from 2005 to 2014 was performed. ED revisits were identified via unique patient identifiers which allow for patient tracking across hospitals in NY State.

RESULTS

In total, 59,255 (7.9%) patients presented to the ED within 30-days of their operation of which 21,638 (36.5%) were admitted. The aggregated rate of ED utilization and admission from the ED were as follows: cholecystectomy (9.5%, 40%), appendectomy (9.1%, 33.1%), and inguinal hernia repair (5.1%, 26.2%), respectively. A longitudinal analysis demonstrated a relative slowing of the rate of increase in hospital readmissions for cholecystectomy and inguinal hernia repair but no change in the number of ED revisits for inguinal hernia repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 1 in 10 patients undergoing cholecystectomy and appendectomy, and 1 in 20 patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair will present to the ED following surgery. The majority of ED visits do not result in admission, calling their necessity into question. These data suggest possible overutilization of the ED following common operations and support the consideration of ED utilization as a quality indicator.

Medium and long-term emergency department utilization after oesophagectomy: a population-based analysis

OBJECTIVES

Oesophagectomy is a complex operation with the potential for prolonged recovery. The aim of this study was to evaluate healthcare resource utilization, specifically emergency department (ED) visits within 1 year of oesophagectomy, and to identify risk factors for ED visits and frequent ED use (FEDU).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive oesophagectomies for cancer in all Ontario hospitals was conducted using linked health data (2000-2012) including the ability to identify ED visits at non-index hospitals. Ontario has a single-payer healthcare system with a population of 13.8-million people. Multivariable regression was used to identify independent factors associated with ED visits and FEDU (≥3 ED visits) within 1 year after oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

There were 3344 oesophagectomies with in-hospital mortality of 5.8% (n = 193). Of those discharged, 16.4% (n = 549), 36.0% (n = 1203) and 55.8% (n = 1866) had ED visits within 30 days, 90 days and 1 year, respectively. Higher comorbidity [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.11, P < 0.0001], rurality (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.10-1.78, P = 0.006) and receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy (aOR = 2.55, 95% CI: 2.12-3.08, P < 0.0001) were independent risk factors for ED visits within 1 year of oesophagectomy. Thoracoscopic-assisted surgery was independently associated with decreased ED visits (aOR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.45-0.99, P = 0.049). Eight hundred and thirteen (24.3%) patients had FEDU. Higher comorbidity (aOR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.08-1.14, P < 0.0001), rurality (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31-2.10, P < 0.0001) and receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy (aOR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.93-2.93, P < 0.0001) were independent risk factors for FEDU. One health region had more ED visits (P = 0.04) and more FEDU (P = 0.001) when compared with the other regions. There were higher ED visits and FEDU in the later years of the study period (both P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ED visits are common after oesophagectomy with almost 25% of patients having ≥3 visits and >50% having ≥1 visit within 1 year of oesophagectomy. We have identified demographic, surgical and regional risk factors for the potential targeted quality improvement.

Emergency department use is high after esophagectomy and feeding tube problems are the biggest culprit

OBJECTIVES

Esophagectomy is a complex operation with potential for prolonged recovery. We aimed to identify the incidence of and risk factors for any and frequent emergency department visits within 1 year of esophagectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed looking at consecutive esophagectomies at a tertiary Canadian center (1999-2014). Multivariable analyses identified factors associated with any emergency department visits and frequent emergency department use (≥3 visits) within 1 year postesophagectomy.

RESULTS

There were 520 esophagectomies with in-hospital mortality of 6% (n = 31). Of those discharged, 29.7% (n = 145) had ≥ 1 emergency department visit. Most common causes were feeding tube problems (39.3%; n = 57) and dysphagia/stricture (13.1%; n = 19). Higher income (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.42 per $10,000) and use of hybrid/minimally invasive esophagectomy (aOR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.71-6.11) were independently associated with having emergency department visits. Patients with hybrid/minimally invasive esophagectomy were discharged earlier than others (P < .0001). Living outside of our metropolitan area (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) and having surgery in the later years of the study period (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; P = .006) were both independently associated with lower odds of emergency department visits. Forty-three patients (8.8%) were frequent emergency department users, with the most common causes of repeat emergency visits being feeding tube problems. Living outside of our metropolitan area was associated with lower odds of frequent emergency visits (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

There is high emergency department use within 1 year postesophagectomy. Patients living farther away from our hospital had a lower rate of emergency department use. It is possible that they are utilizing emergency departments nearer to home; this needs further study. Feeding tube problems are the biggest culprits and are potentially modifiable.

Achieving high quality standards in laparoscopic colon resection for cancer: A Delphi consensus-based position paper

AIM

To investigate the rate of laparoscopic colectomies for colon cancer using registries and population-based studies. To provide a position paper on mini-invasive (MIS) colon cancer surgery based on the opinion of experts leader in this field.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PRISMA guidelines for the rate of laparoscopy in colon cancer. Moreover, Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among 35 international experts in four study rounds. Consensus was defined as an agreement ≥75.0%. Domains of interest included nosology, essential technical/oncological requirements, outcomes and MIS training.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies from 42 articles were reviewed. Although it is still sub-optimal, the rate of MIS for colon cancer increased over the years and it is currently >50% in Korea, Netherlands, UK and Australia. The remaining European countries are un-investigated and presented lower rates with highest variations, ranging 7-35%. Using Delphi methodology, a laparoscopic colectomy was defined as a "colon resection performed using key-hole surgery independently from the type of anastomosis". The panel defined also the oncological requirements recognized essential for the procedure and agreed that when performed by experienced surgeons, it should be marked as best practice in guidelines, given the principles of oncologic surgery be respected (R0 procedure, vessel ligation and mesocolon integrity).

CONCLUSION

The rate of MIS colectomies for cancer in Europe should be further investigated. A panel of leaders in this field defined laparoscopic colectomy as a best practice procedure when performed by an experienced surgeon respecting the standards of surgical oncology.

Patient, Hospital, and Geographic Disparities in Laparoscopic Surgery Use Among Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Patients With Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the primary treatment for colon cancer, but use of laparoscopic approaches varies widely despite demonstrated short- and long-term benefits.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with laparoscopic colon cancer resection and to quantify variation based on patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics.

DESIGN

Bayesian cross-classified, multilevel logistic models calculated adjusted ORs and CIs for patient, surgeon, hospital, and geographic characteristics and unexplained variability (predicted vs. observed values) using adjusted median odds ratios for hospitals and counties.

SETTINGS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare claims database (2008-2011) supplemented with county-level American Community Survey (2008-2012) demographic data was used.

PATIENTS

A total of 10,618 patients ≥66 years old who underwent colon cancer resection were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Nonurgent/nonemergent resections for colon cancer patients ≥66 years old were classified as laparoscopic or open procedures.

RESULTS

Patients resided in 579 counties and used 950 hospitals; 47% of patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollment, age ≥85 years, and higher tumor stage and grade were negatively associated with laparoscopic surgery receipt; proximal tumors and increasing hospital size and surgeon caseload were positively associated. Significant unexplained variability at the hospital (adjusted median OR = 3.31; p < 0.001) and county levels (adjusted median OR = 1.28; p < 0.05) remained after adjustment.

LIMITATIONS

This was an observational study lacking generalizability to younger patients without Medicare or those with Health Maintenance Organization coverage and data set did not reflect national hospital studies or hospital volume. In addition, we were unable to account for specific types of comorbidities, such as obesity, and had broad categories for surgeon caseload.

CONCLUSIONS

Determining sources of hospital-level variation among poor insured patients may help increase laparoscopic resection to maximize health outcomes and reduce cost. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A363.

A Systematic Review of Emergency Department Use Among Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Recent reports call for reductions in costly and potentially avoidable services such as emergency department (ED) visits. Providing high-quality and safe care for oncology patients remains challenging for ED providers given the diversity of patients seeking care and the unpredictable clinical environment. While ED use by oncology patients is appropriate for acute health concerns, some ED visits may be preventable with well-coordinated care and adequate symptom management.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to summarize available evidence regarding the incidence, predictors of, and reasons for ED visits among oncology patients.

METHODS

Keyword/MeSH term searches were conducted using 4 online databases. Inclusion criteria were publication date between April 1, 2003, and December 5, 2014; sample size of 50 or more; and report of the incidence or predictors of ED use among oncology patients.

RESULTS

The 15 studies that met criteria varied in study aim, design, and time frames for calculating ED utilization rates. The incidence of ED visits among oncology patients ranged from 1% to 83%. The 30-day standardized visit rate incidence ranged from 1% to 12%. Collectively, the studies lack population-based estimates for all cancers combined.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies included in this review suggest that rates of ED use among cancer patients exceed those of the general population. However, the extent of ED use by oncology patients and the reasons for ED visits remain understudied.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses are involved in the treatment of cancer, patient education, and symptom management. Nurses are well positioned to develop patient-centered treatment and care coordination plans to improve quality of care and reduce ED visits.

Emergency department use by recently diagnosed cancer patients in California

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality of cancer care and reducing preventable health system use are goals of increasing importance to health practitioners and policy makers. Emergency department (ED) visits are often cited as a source of preventable health system use, however, few studies have described the incidence of ED use by recently diagnosed cancer patients in population-based samples, and no study has addressed the full spectrum of cancer types.

OBJECTIVE

To describe ED use by recently diagnosed cancer patients.

METHODS

California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development data and the California Cancer Registry were used to describe ED use in the year after a cancer diagnosis (2009-2010). The incidence of ED use was tabulated by cancer type. Logistic regression and recycled predictions were used to examine ED use adjusting for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Most ED visits (68%) occurred within 180 days of diagnosis. The incidence of ED use for all cancer types examined was 17% within 30 days, 35% within 180 days and 44% within 365 days of diagnosis. ED use varied by cancer type (5%-39% within 30 days of diagnosis; 14% -62% within 180 days; and 22%-69% within 365 days). Patterns of ED use by cancer type remained similar after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors.

LIMITATIONS

Those common to administrative and registry datasets. Specifically, we were unable to account for ED visits in relation to cancer treatment dates and comorbid conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients use EDs at higher rates than previously reported, with considerable variability by cancer type. Future research should examine reasons for ED visits by cancer type and identify predictors of ED use, including treatment and comorbid conditions.

Understanding readmissions following operations of the thyroid and parathyroid glands

BACKGROUND

In anticipation of bundled-payment models for thyroid and parathyroid disease, a better understanding of resource utilization following surgery is required. We sought to characterize the use of hospital services following such operations using an analysis of readmissions.

METHODS

Patients age 18+years who underwent a thyroid or parathyroid operation in CA or NY (2008-2011) were classified by procedure type. Primary outcome was readmission within 90 days. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine factors associated with readmission. Subset analysis was performed for thyroid cancer patients.

RESULTS

Among 59,427 patients, 34.2% had thyroid cancer. Eleven percent (n = 6462) were readmitted within 90 days, with 27% readmitted to a different hospital than the index. 66.2% of thyroid cancer patients were readmitted for a related condition.

CONCLUSION

Eleven percent of patients are admitted to the hospital within 90 days of an operation in the thyroid or parathyroid glands. Patient factors and diseases necessitate the use of hospital services. Bundled payments must consider the patients' needs for hospital-based services in calculating costs for surgically treated endocrine disorders.

Factors associated with emergency department visit within 30 days after discharge

BACKGROUND

Post-discharge care remains a challenge because continuity of care is often interrupted and adverse events frequently occur. Previous studies have focused on early readmission but few have investigated emergency department (ED) visit after discharge.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was conducted between April 2011 and March 2012 in a referral center in Taiwan. Patients discharged from the general medical wards during the study period were analyzed and their characteristics, hospital course, and associated factors were collected. An ED visit within 30 days of discharge was the primary outcome while readmission or death at home were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 799 discharged patients analyzed, including 96 (12 %) with an ED visit of 12.4 days post-discharge and 111 (14 %) with readmissions at 13.3 days post-discharge. Sixty patients were admitted after their ED visit. Underlying chronic illnesses were associated with 72 % of ED visits. By multivariate analysis, Charlson score and the use of naso-gastric tube were independent risk factors for ED visit within 30 days after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Early ED visit after discharge is as high as 12 %. Patients with chronic illness and those requiring a naso-gastric tube or external biliary drain are at high risk for post-discharge ED visit.

Timing of discharge: a key to understanding the reason for readmission after colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

There is a growing interest in surgery regarding the balance between appropriate hospital length of stay (LOS) and prevention of unnecessary readmissions. This study examines the relationship between postoperative LOS and unplanned readmission after colorectal resection, exploring whether patients discharged earlier have different readmission risk profiles.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colorectal resection were selected by Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) code from the 2012 ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Patients were stratified by LOS quartile. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to examine characteristics associated with 30-day unplanned readmission. Factors with a p < 0.1 were included in the Cox proportional hazards model. Subsequently, chi-square analysis compared LOS, patient, and perioperative factors with the primary reason for readmission. Factors with a p < 0.2 were included in a multivariable logistic regression for each readmission reason.

RESULTS

For 33,033 patients undergoing colorectal resection, the overall 30-day unplanned readmission rate was 11 %. After adjusting for patient and perioperative factors, a postoperative LOS ≥8 days was associated with a 55 % increase in the relative hazard of readmission. Patients with a ≤3-day LOS were more likely to be readmitted with ileus/obstruction (odds ratio (OR): 1.8, p = 0.001) and pain (OR: 2.2, p = 0.007). LOS was not significantly associated with readmission for intraabdominal infection or medical complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with longer LOS and complicated hospital courses continue to be high risk post-discharge, while straightforward early discharges have a different readmission risk profile. More targeted readmission prevention strategies are critical to focusing resource utilization for colorectal surgery patients.

Acute health care resource utilization for ileostomy patients is higher than expected

BACKGROUND

Patients requiring an ileostomy following colorectal surgery are at risk for increased health-care utilization after discharge. Prior studies evaluating postoperative ileostomy care may underestimate health-care utilization by reporting only "same-institution" readmission rates.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the rates of health-care utilization of new ostomates within 30 days of discharge in a multicenter environment.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at acute-care, community hospitals in California, Florida, Nebraska, and New York.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who underwent colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis, colostomy, or ileostomy between July 2009 and September 2010 were identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured was hospital-based acute care, defined as hospital readmission or emergency department visit, at any hospital within 30 days of surgery. Multivariate regression models were used to compare the outcomes across groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 75,136 patients underwent colectomy with most receiving a primary anastomosis (79.3%), whereas colostomies were created in 12.8% and ileostomies were created in 8.0%. Diagnoses of colorectal cancer (36.1%) or diverticular disease (22.0%) were most common. Patients with a colostomy (18.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.17-1.30]) or ileostomy (36.1%; AOR, 2.28 [95% CI 2.15-2.42]) were significantly more likely than patients with a primary anastomosis (16.2%) to have a hospital-based acute-care encounter within 30 days of discharge. Among patients undergoing ileostomy, postoperative infection, renal failure, and dehydration were the most common diagnoses for hospital-based acute-care events. Overall, 20% of these encounters occurred at hospitals other than where the index surgery occurred.

LIMITATIONS

Coding accuracy, the inability to capture events occurring in physician offices, and the retrospective study design were limitations of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing colorectal surgery with an ileostomy return to the hospital after discharge twice as frequently as those with a primary anastomosis or colostomy, often to hospitals other than the primary institution. As postdischarge health-care utilization becomes a measured quality metric, it is increasingly important to help these patients to safely transition to home.

A variation in the value of colectomy for cancer across hospitals: mortality, readmissions, and costs

INTRODUCTION

Although hospital variation in costs and outcomes has been described for patients undergoing operation, the relationship between them is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this relationship among patients undergoing colon resection for cancer and identify characteristics of "high-quality, low-cost" hospitals.

METHODS

We identified adult patients who underwent colon resection for cancer in California, Florida, and New York from 2009 to 2010. We estimated hospital-level, risk-standardized 30-day hospital costs, in-hospital mortality rates, and 30-day readmission rates by using hierarchical generalized linear models. Costs were compared between hospitals identified as low, average, and high performers.

RESULTS

The final sample included 14,790 patients discharged from 389 hospitals. After adjusting for case mix, variation was noted in risk-standardized costs (median = $26,169, inter-quartile range [IQR] = $6,559), in-hospital mortality (median = 1.8%, IQR = 2.3%), and 30-day readmission (12.2%, IQR = 0.7%) rates. Minimal correlation was noted between a hospital's costs and outcomes, with similar costs noted across hospital performance groups (low = $25,994 vs average = $26,998 vs high = $25,794, P = .19). High-quality, low-cost hospitals treated a greater percentage of Medicare beneficiaries, approached fewer cases laparoscopically, and trended toward greater volume.

CONCLUSION

Hospital costs are not correlated with outcomes in this population. More work is needed to identify means of providing high-quality care at lesser costs.

Predictive risk factors for 30-day readmissions following primary total joint arthroplasty and modification of patient management

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have begun to publically publish statistics on readmissions following primary total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Our study retrospectively assesses 30-day readmissions rates following THA and TKA, performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary care medical center between 2007 and 2012. Results of a univariate analysis and logistic regression model indicated female gender, high ASA class, and increased operative time to be significantly associated with higher rates of readmission (OR 4.646, OR 1.257, and OR 5.323, respectively). Readmissions most often occurred within the first week of patient discharge. Surgical complications and gastrointestinal discomfort were the most common causes for readmission. Using readmission risk we can stratify patients into tiered critical care pathways to reduce readmissions.

The effects of data sources, cohort selection, and outcome definition on a predictive model of risk of thirty-day hospital readmissions

BACKGROUND

Hospital readmission risk prediction remains a motivated area of investigation and operations in light of the hospital readmissions reduction program through CMS. Multiple models of risk have been reported with variable discriminatory performances, and it remains unclear how design factors affect performance.

OBJECTIVES

To study the effects of varying three factors of model development in the prediction of risk based on health record data: (1) reason for readmission (primary readmission diagnosis); (2) available data and data types (e.g. visit history, laboratory results, etc); (3) cohort selection.

METHODS

Regularized regression (LASSO) to generate predictions of readmissions risk using prevalence sampling. Support Vector Machine (SVM) used for comparison in cohort selection testing. Calibration by model refitting to outcome prevalence.

RESULTS

Predicting readmission risk across multiple reasons for readmission resulted in ROC areas ranging from 0.92 for readmission for congestive heart failure to 0.71 for syncope and 0.68 for all-cause readmission. Visit history and laboratory tests contributed the most predictive value; contributions varied by readmission diagnosis. Cohort definition affected performance for both parametric and nonparametric algorithms. Compared to all patients, limiting the cohort to patients whose index admission and readmission diagnoses matched resulted in a decrease in average ROC from 0.78 to 0.55 (difference in ROC 0.23, p value 0.01). Calibration plots demonstrate good calibration with low mean squared error.

CONCLUSION

Targeting reason for readmission in risk prediction impacted discriminatory performance. In general, laboratory data and visit history data contributed the most to prediction; data source contributions varied by reason for readmission. Cohort selection had a large impact on model performance, and these results demonstrate the difficulty of comparing results across different studies of predictive risk modeling.

Risk factors for 30-day readmissions and modifying postoperative care after gastric bypass surgery

BACKGROUND

Although hospital 30-day readmissions policies currently focus on medical conditions, readmission penalties will be expanding to encompass surgical procedures, logically beginning with common and standardized procedures, such as gastric bypass. Therefore, understanding predictors of readmission is essential in lowering readmission rate for these procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective case-control study of patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass at Tufts Medical Center from 2007 to 2012. Variables analyzed included demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative events, postoperative complications, discharge disposition, and readmission diagnoses. Univariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with readmission, which were then subjected to multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We reviewed 358 patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass, 119 readmits, and 239 controls. By univariate analysis, public insurance, body mass index >60 kg/m(2), duration of procedure, high American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and discharge with visiting nurse services (VNA) were significantly associated with 30-day readmissions. In the regression model, duration of procedure, high ASA class, and discharge with visiting nurse services (VNA) remained significantly associated with readmission when controlling for other factors (odds ratio [OR] 1.523, 95% CI 1.314 to 1.766; OR 2.447, 95% CI 1.305 to 4.487; and OR 0.053 with 95% CI 0.011 to 0.266, respectively). The majority of readmissions occurred within the first week after discharge. Gastrointestinal-related issues were the most common diagnoses on readmission, and included anastomotic leaks, postoperative ileus, and bowel obstruction. The next 2 most common reasons for readmission were wound infection and fluid depletion.

CONCLUSIONS

Using readmission risk, we can stratify patients into tiered clinical pathways. Because most readmissions occur within the first postdischarge week and are most commonly associated with dehydration, pain, or wound issues, focusing our postoperative protocols and patient education should further lower the incidence of readmission.