Every Emergency General Surgery Patient Deserves Pathway-Driven Care

Heterogeneity in Surgical Quality Improvement in Michigan

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in 30-day postoperative outcomes and individual hospital variation in outcomes from 2012 to 2019 in a collaborative quality improvement network.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Collaborative quality improvement efforts have been shown to improve postoperative outcomes overall; however, heterogeneity in improvement between participating hospitals remains unclear. Understanding the distribution of individual hospital-level changes is necessary to inform resource allocation and policy design.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 51 hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) from 2012 to 2019. Risk-and reliability-adjusted hospital rates of 30-day mortality, complications, serious complications, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reoperations were calculated for each year and compared between the last 2 years and the first 2 years of the study period.

RESULTS

There was a significant decrease in the rates of all 5 adverse outcomes across MSQC hospitals from 2012 to 2019. Of the 51 individual hospitals, 31 (61%) hospitals achieved a decrease in mortality (range -1.3 percentage points to +0.6 percentage points), 40 (78%) achieved a decrease in complications (range -8.5 percentage points to +2.9 percentage points), 26 (51%) achieved a decrease in serious complications (range -3.2 percentage points to +3.0 percentage points), 29 (57%) achieved a decrease in ED visits (range 5.0 percentage points to +2.2 percentage points), 46 (90%) achieved a decrease in readmissions (range -3.1 percentage points to +0.4 percentage points) and 39 (76%) achieved a decrease in reoperations (range 3.3 percentage points to +1.0 percentage points).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite overall improvement in surgical outcomes across hospitals participating in a quality improvement collaborative, there was substantial variation in improvement between hospitals, highlighting opportunities to better understand hospital-level barriers and facilitators to surgical quality improvement.

Emergency Laparotomy

Emergency laparotomy is a high-risk surgical procedure with mortality and morbidity up to 10 times higher than for a similar procedure performed electively. An enhanced recovery approach has been shown to improve outcomes. A focus on rapid correction of underlying deranged acute physiology and proactive management of conditions associated with aging such as frailty and delirium are key. Patients are at high risk of complications and prevention and avoidance of failure to rescue are essential to improve outcomes. Other enhanced recovery components such as opioid-sparing analgesia and early postoperative mobilization are beneficial.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Wound Bundles in Emergency Midline Laparotomy Identifies That It Is Time for Improvement

BACKGROUND

Emergency midline laparotomy is the cornerstone of survival in patients with peritonitis. While bundling of care elements has been shown to optimize outcomes, this has focused on elective rather than emergency abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of factors affecting the development of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing midline emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

An ethically approved, PROSPERO registered (ID: CRD42020193246) meta-analysis and systematic review, searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library electronic databases from January 2015 to June 2020 and adhering to PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. Search headings included "emergency surgery", "laparotomy", "surgical site infection", "midline incision" and "wound bundle". Suitable publications were graded using Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS); papers scoring ≥16/24 were included for data analysis. The primary outcome in this study was SSI rates following the use of wound bundles. Secondary outcomes consisted of the effect of the individual interventions included in the bundles and the SSI rates for superficial and deep infections. Five studies focusing on closure techniques were grouped to assess their effect on SSI.

RESULTS

This study identified 1875 articles. A total of 58 were potentially suitable, and 11 were included after applying MINORS score. The final cohort included 2,856 patients from eight countries. Three papers came from the USA, two papers from Japan and the remainder from Denmark, England, Iran, Netherlands, Spain and Turkey. There was a 32% non-significant SSI reduction after the implementation of wound bundles (RR = 0.68; CI, 0.39-1.17; p = 0.16). In bundles used for technical closure the reduction in SSI of 15% was non-significant (RR = 0.85; CI, 0.57-1.26; p = 0.41). Analysis of an effective wound bundle was limited due to insufficient data.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified a significant deficit in the world literature relating to emergency laparotomy and wound outcome optimisation. Given the global burden of emergency general surgery urgent action is needed to assess bundle's ability to potentially improve outcome after emergency laparotomy.