Improving Statewide Post-Operative Sepsis Performance Measurement Using Hospital Risk Adjustment Within a Surgical Collaborative

Background: The Georgia Quality Improvement Program (GQIP) surgical collaborative participating hospitals have shown consistently poor performance in the post-operative sepsis category of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data as compared with national benchmarks. We aimed to compare crude versus risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rankings to determine high and low performers amongst GQIP hospitals. Patients and Methods: The cohort included intra-abdominal general surgery patients across 10 collaborative hospitals from 2015 to 2020. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) sepsis definition was used among all hospitals for case abstraction and NSQIP data were utilized to train and validate a multivariable risk-adjustment model with post-operative sepsis as the outcome. This model was used to rank GQIP hospitals by risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rates. Rankings between crude and risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rankings were compared ordinally and for changes in tertile. Results: The study included 20,314 patients with 595 cases of post-operative sepsis. Crude 30-day post-operative sepsis risk among hospitals ranged from 0.81 to 5.11. When applying the risk-adjustment model which included: age, American Society of Anesthesiology class, case complexity, pre-operative pneumonia/urinary tract infection/surgical site infection, admission status, and wound class, nine of 10 hospitals were re-ranked and four hospitals changed performance tertiles. Conclusions: Inter-collaborative risk-adjusted post-operative sepsis rankings are important to present. These metrics benchmark collaborating hospitals, which facilitates best practice exchange from high to low performers.

Complication rates of ostomy surgery are high and vary significantly between hospitals

BACKGROUND

Ostomy surgery is common and has traditionally been associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, suggesting an important target for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the variation in outcomes after ostomy creation surgery within Michigan to identify targets for quality improvement.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study took place within the 34-hospital Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative.

PATIENTS

Patients included were those undergoing ostomy creation surgery between 2006 and 2011.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We evaluated hospital morbidity and mortality rates after risk adjustment (age, comorbidities, emergency vs elective, and procedure type).

RESULTS

A total of 4250 patients underwent ostomy creation surgery; 3866 procedures (91.0%) were open and 384 (9.0%) were laparoscopic. Unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 43.9% and 10.7%. Unadjusted morbidity rates for specific procedures ranged from 32.7% for ostomy-creation-only procedures to 47.8% for Hartmann procedures. Risk-adjusted morbidity rates varied significantly between hospitals, ranging from 31.2% (95% CI, 18.4-43.9) to 60.8% (95% CI, 48.9-72.6). There were 5 statistically significant high-outlier hospitals and 3 statistically significant low-outlier hospitals for risk-adjusted morbidity. The pattern of complication types was similar between high- and low-outlier hospitals. Case volume, operative duration, and use of laparoscopic surgery did not explain the variation in morbidity rates across hospitals.

LIMITATIONS

This work was limited by its retrospective study design, by unmeasured variation in case severity, and by our inability to differentiate between colostomies and ileostomies because of the use of Current Procedural Terminology codes.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbidity and mortality rates for modern ostomy surgery are high. Although this type of surgery has received little attention in healthcare policy, these data reveal that it is both common and uncommonly morbid. Variation in hospital performance provides an opportunity to identify quality improvement practices that could be disseminated among hospitals.