Advertisement

Report of a Quality Improvement Program for Reducing Postoperative Complications by Using a Surgical Risk Calculator in a Cohort of General Surgery Patients

  • Elisa M. Müller
  • Eva Herrmann
  • Thomas Schmandra
  • Thomas F. Weigel
  • Ernst Hanisch
  • Alexander BuiaEmail author
Original Scientific Report
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The study investigates whether postoperative complications in elective surgery can be reduced by using a risk calculator via raising the awareness of the surgeon in a preoperative briefing. Postoperative complications like wound infections or pneumonia result in a high burden for healthcare systems. Multiple quality improvement programs address this problem like the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator® (SRC).

Methods

To determine whether the preoperative usage of the SRC could reduce inpatient postoperative complications, two groups of 832 patients each were compared using propensity score matching. The SRC was employed retrospectively in the period 2012/2013 in one group (“Retro”) and prospectively in the other group (“Prosp”) in the period 2014/2015. Actual inpatient postoperative complications were classified by SRC complication categories and compared with the Clavien–Dindo complication classification system (Dindo et al. in Ann Surg 240:205–213, 2004).

Results

Comparing SRC “serious complication” and SRC “any complication,” a nonsignificant increase in the “Prosp”-group was apparent (serious complication: 6.6% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.164; any complication: 8.5% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.444).

Conclusion

Use of the SRC neither reduces inpatient postoperative complications nor the severity of complications. The calculations of the SRC rely on a 30-day postoperative follow-up. Poor sensitivity and medium specificity of the SRC showed that the SRC could not make accurate predictions in a short follow-up time averaging 6 days. Alternatively, since the observed complication rate was low in our study, in an environment of already highly implemented risk management tools, reductions in complications are not easily achieved.

Notes

Supplementary material

268_2020_5393_MOESM1_ESM.docx (50 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 49 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD et al (2008) An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. www.thelancet.com. 372:139
  2. 2.
    Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G et al (2016) Size and distribution of the global volume of surgery in 2012. Bull World Health Organ 94:201–209FCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearse RM, Clavien PA, Demartines N et al (2016) Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries. Br J Anaesth 117:601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haugen AS, Søfteland E, Almeland SK et al (2015) Effect of the World Health Organization checklist on patient outcomes: a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 261:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Treadwell JR, Lucas S, Tsou AY (2014) Surgical checklists: a systematic review of impacts and implementation. BMJ Qual Saf 23:299–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Howell AM, Panesar SS, Burns EM et al (2014) Reducing the burden of surgical harm: a systematic review of the interventions used to reduce adverse events in surgery. Ann Surg 259:630–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neily J, Mills PD, Young-Xu Y et al (2010) Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical mortality. JAMA 304:1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nundy S, Mukherjee A, Sexton JB et al (2008) Impact of preoperative briefings on operating room delays. Arch Surg 143:1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salas E, Frush K (2012) Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. In: Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training, 1st ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 170Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sacks GD, Dawes AJ, Ettner SL et al (2016) Surgeon perception of risk and benefit in the decision to operate. Ann Surg 264:896–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL et al (2013) Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 217:833–842.e3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vogel P, Vogel DHV (2019) Cognition errors in the treatment course of patients with anastomotic failure after colorectal resection. BMC 6:1–10Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hull L, Arora S, Aggarwal R et al (2012) The impact of nontechnical skills on technical performance in surgery: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg 214:214–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D et al (2016) SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process Table 1 Revised Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) publication guidelines. J Contin Educ Nursing, J Am Coll Surg 25:986–992Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanhaecht K, Ovretveit J, Elliott MJ et al (2012) Have we drawn the wrong conclusions about the value of care pathways? Is a cochrane review appropriate? Eval. Heal. Prof. 35:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tevis S (2014) Implications of multiple complications on post-operative recovery in general surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 219:e36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schneider EC, Sarnak DO, Squires D et al (2017) Mirror, Mirror 2017: international comparison reflects flaws and opportunities for better U.S. Health CareGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sacks GD, Dawes AJ, Ettner SL et al (2016) Impact of a risk calculator on risk perception and surgical decision making: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 264:889–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glasgow RE, Hawn MT, Hosokawa PW et al (2014) Comparison of prospective risk estimates for postoperative complications: human versus computer model. J Am Coll Surg 218:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Markus PM, Martell J, Leister I et al (2005) Predicting postoperative morbidity by clinical assessment. Br J Surg 92:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson JS, Baxter BT, Allison JG et al (2003) Temporal patterns of postoperative complications. Arch Surg 138:596–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lonjon G, Porcher R, Ergina P et al (2017) Potential pitfalls of reporting and bias in observational studies with propensity score analysis assessing a surgical procedure. Ann Surg 265:901–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lonjon G, Boutron I, Trinquart L et al (2014) Comparison of treatment effect estimates from prospective nonrandomized studies with propensity score analysis and randomized controlled trials of surgical procedures. Ann Surg 259:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weigel TF, Hanisch E, Hanisch A et al (2019) Power of judgment: the significance of Kant’s philosophy for the medical system today. J Surg Educ 76:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Asklepios Klinik LangenAcademic Teaching Hospital Goethe-University FrankfurtLangenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and Mathematical ModelingGoethe-University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  3. 3.Department of Vascular SurgeryRhön Klinik Bad Neustadt a. d. SaaleBad Neustadt an der SaaleGermany
  4. 4.Department of General and Visceral SurgeryHeilig-Geist-Hospital BingenBingen am RheinGermany

Personalised recommendations