Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 2886–2893 | Cite as

Application of a simple, affordable quality metric tool to colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, hernia, and hepatobiliary surgery patients: the HARM score

  • Justin T. Brady
  • Bona Ko
  • Samuel F. Hohmann
  • Benjamin P. Crawshaw
  • Jennifer A. Leinicke
  • Scott R. Steele
  • Knut M. Augestad
  • Conor P. Delaney
Article

Abstract

Background

Quality is the major driver for both clinical and financial assessment. There remains a need for simple, affordable, quality metric tools to evaluate patient outcomes, which led us to develop the HospitAl length of stay, Readmission and Mortality (HARM) score. We hypothesized that the HARM score would be a reliable tool to assess patient outcomes across various surgical specialties.

Methods

From 2011 to 2015, we identified colorectal, hepatobiliary, upper gastrointestinal, and hernia surgery admissions using the Vizient Clinical Database. Individual and hospital HARM scores were calculated from length of stay, 30-day readmission, and mortality rates. We evaluated the correlation of HARM scores with complication rates using the Clavien–Dindo classification.

Results

We identified 525,083 surgical patients: 206,981 colorectal, 164,691 hepatobiliary, 97,157 hernia, and 56,254 upper gastrointestinal. Overall, 53.8% of patients were admitted electively with a mean HARM score of 2.24; 46.2% were admitted emergently with a mean HARM score of 1.45 (p < 0.0001). All HARM components correlated with patient complications on logistic regression (p < 0.0001). The mean length of stay increased from 3.2 ± 1.8 days for a HARM score < 2 to 15.1 ± 12.2 days for a HARM score > 4 (p < 0.001). In elective admissions, for HARM categories of < 2, 2–< 3, 3–4, and > 4, complication rates were 9.3, 23.2, 38.8, and 71.6%, respectively. There was a similar trend for increasing HARM score in emergent admissions as well. For all surgical procedure categories, increasing HARM score, with and without risk adjustment, correlated with increasing severity of complications by Clavien–Dindo classification.

Conclusions

The HARM score is an easy-to-use quality metric that correlates with increasing complication rates and complication severity across multiple surgical disciplines when evaluated on a large administrative database. This inexpensive tool could be adopted across multiple institutions to compare the quality of surgical care.

Keywords

Surgical outcomes Quality Colorectal Hepatobiliary 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a SAGES Research Grant.

Author contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design, and/or acquisition of data, and/or analysis and interpretation of data; participated in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and gave final approval of the version to be submitted and any revised version to be published.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Samuel F. Hohmann is employed by Vizient as a Research Analytics Director, Dr. Scott R. Steele has consulted to Medtronic and Ethicon, Dr. Conor P. Delaney has consulted to Merck, Ethicon, Trans-Enterix and Recro-Pharma, Dr. Justin Brady, Dr. Bona Ko, Dr. Benjamin P. Crawshaw, Dr. Jennifer A. Leinicke, and Dr. Knut M. Augestad have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2017_5998_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)
464_2017_5998_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 19 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Cologne KG, Keller DS, Liwanag L, Devaraj B, Senagore AJ (2015) Use of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator for laparoscopic colectomy: how good is it and how can we improve it? J Am Coll Surg 220:281–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim L, Mabry C, Klimberg VS (2007) Quality of benchmarks for assessment of care will influence outcome. Ann Surg 245:672–673CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edmiston CE, Spencer M, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Rossi PJ, Henen CR, Smith HW, Seabrook GR (2011) Reducing the risk of surgical site infections: did we really think SCIP was going to lead us to the promised land? Surg Infect (Larchmt) 12:169–177.  https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2011.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hawn MT, Vick CC, Richman J, Holman W, Deierhoi RJ, Graham L, Henderson WG, Itani KMF (2011) Surgical site infection prevention: time to move beyond the surgical care improvement program. Ann Surg 254:494–501.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822c6929 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krell RW, Hozain A, Kao LS, Dimick JB (2014) Reliability of risk-adjusted outcomes for profiling hospital surgical quality. JAMA Surg 149:467–474.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4249 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stulberg JJ, Delaney CP, Neuhauser DV, Aron DC, Fu P, Koroukian SM (2010) Adherence to surgical care improvement project measures and the association with postoperative infections. JAMA 303:2479–2485.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.841 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Baser O, Birkmeyer JD (2009) Composite measures for predicting surgical mortality in the hospital. Health Aff 28:1189–1198.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.1189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Hall BL, Ko CY, Birkmeyer JD (2013) Composite measures for profiling hospitals on surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 257:67–72.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827b6be6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Brien SM, Shahian DM, DeLong ER, Normand SLT, Edwards FH, Ferraris VA, Haan CK, Rich JB, Shewan CM, Dokholyan RS, Anderson RP, Peterson ED (2007) Quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 2-statistical considerations in composite measure scoring and provider rating. Ann Thorac Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.01.055 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Staiger DO, Dimick JB, Baser O, Fan Z, Birkmeyer JD (2009) Empirically derived composite measures of surgical performance. Med Care 47:226–233.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181847574 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ, Finks JF, Share DA, English WJ, Carlin AM, Birkmeyer JD (2014) Composite measures for profiling hospitals on bariatric surgery performance. JAMA Surg 149:10.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keller DS, Chien H-LL, Hashemi L, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2014) The HARM score: a novel, easy measure to evaluate quality and outcomes in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 259:1119–1125.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a6f45e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crawshaw BP, Keller DS, Brady JT, Augestad KM, Schiltz NK, Koroukian SM, Navale SM, Steele SR, Delaney CP (2016) The HARM score for gastrointestinal surgery: application and validation of a novel, reliable and simple tool to measure surgical quality and outcomes. Am J Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.11.007 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sutton JM, Hayes AJ, Wilson GC, Quillin RC, Wima K, Hohmann S, Paquette IM, Sussman JJ, Ahmad SA, Shah SA, Abbott DE (2014) Validation of the University HealthSystem Consortium administrative dataset: concordance and discordance with patient-level institutional data. J Surg Res 190:484–490.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lipshutz AKM, Feiner JR, Grimes B, Gropper MA (2016) Predicting mortality in the intensive care unit: a comparison of the University Health Consortium expected probability of mortality and the mortality prediction model III. J Intensive Care 4:35.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-016-0158-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson GC, Hoehn RS, Ertel AE (2015) Variation by center and economic burden of readmissions after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 13:465–466.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.24112 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson GC, Cutler Quillin R, Sutton JM, Wima K, Shaw JJ, Hoehn RS, Paquette IM, Abbott DE, Shah SA (2014) Factors related to readmission after major elective surgery. Dig Dis Sci 60:47–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3306-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vizient Clinical Database and Resource Manager (2017). https://www.vizientinc.com/Our-solutions/Clinical-Solutions/Clinical-Data-Base-and-Resource-Manager. Accessed 17 May 2017
  19. 19.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young MT, Crawshaw BP, Phelan MJ, Mills SD, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Delaney CP, Stamos MJ (2014) Expanding the HospitAl stay, Readmission and Mortality (HARM) score: measuring quality and outcomes in colorectal and gastrointestinal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 219:e150–e151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.07.791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheils CR, Dahlke AR, Kreutzer L, Bilimoria KY, Yang AD (2016) Evaluation of hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Surgery 160:1182–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.04.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Billeter AT, Polk HC, Hohmann SF, Qadan M, Fry DE, Jorden JR, McCafferty MH, Galandiuk S (2012) Mortality after elective colon resection: the search for outcomes that define quality in surgical practice. J Am Coll Surg 214:436–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazaure HS, Roman S, Sosa J (2012) Association of postdischarge complications with reoperation and mortality in general surgery. Arch Surg 147:1000–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamasurg.114 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Collins TC, Daley J, Henderson WH, Khuri SF (1999) Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after major elective surgery. Ann Surg 230:251–259.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199908000-00016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khan NA, Quan H, Bugar JM, Lemaire JB, Brant R, Ghali WA (2006) Association of postoperative complications with hospital costs and length of stay in a tertiary care center. J Gen Intern Med 21:177–180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00319.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin T. Brady
    • 1
  • Bona Ko
    • 2
  • Samuel F. Hohmann
    • 3
    • 4
  • Benjamin P. Crawshaw
    • 1
  • Jennifer A. Leinicke
    • 1
  • Scott R. Steele
    • 5
  • Knut M. Augestad
    • 6
    • 7
  • Conor P. Delaney
    • 8
  1. 1.Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospitals Cleveland Medical CenterClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Case Western Reserve University School of MedicineClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Center for Advanced Analytics, VizientChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Systems ManagementRush UniversityChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  6. 6.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryAkershus University HospitalOsloNorway
  7. 7.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryNordland Hospital TrustBodøNorway
  8. 8.Digestive Disease and Surgery InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations