Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preventable Surgical Harm in Gynecologic Oncology: Optimizing Quality and Patient Safety

  • Gynecologic Oncology (A Fader, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Preventable medical adverse events are a leading cause of death in the USA. The most common adverse events include medication errors, perioperative complications, venous thromboembolism, infection, and readmission. Patients requiring care with a gynecologic oncologist are at increased risk for all of these adverse events, which are both clinically undesirable and now also represent targets for reduced hospital reimbursement. The goal of this review is to identify areas of preventable harm that occur in the perioperative period on a gynecologic oncology service and identify mechanisms to minimize harm.

Recent Findings

Recognizing that gynecologic oncology surgical patients often present with advanced age, medical comorbidities, obesity, and diagnoses requiring radical procedures involving multi-organ resection, they are particularly at risk for perioperative complications, some preventable. Recent studies have examined evidence-based methods for minimizing many areas of preventable harm in gynecologic oncology surgical patients. Multiple studies have implemented bundles of care to successfully decrease surgical site infections. New data on risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) specifically in gynecologic oncology patients guide recommendations for perioperative and extended VTE prophylaxis. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs explore a multitude of factors, many in a bundle format, to minimize overall perioperative complications and decrease length of stay. Additionally, new data are available on rates of hospital readmissions and risk factors for readmission.

Summary

There is already a wealth of information available regarding incidence of complications in gynecologic oncology surgical patients. Fortunately, there is a shift in the USA toward recognizing patient risk factors and implementing interventions to decrease the rate of preventable adverse events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139. This article has gained significant attention in the last year and will likely impact upcoming health policy changes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013;9:122–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182948a69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Henretta MS, Scalici JM, Engelhard CL, Duska LR. The revolving door: hospital readmissions of gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122:479–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilbur MAB, Mannschreck DB, Angarita AM, Matsuno RK, Tanner EJ, Stone RL, et al. Unplanned 30-day hospital readmission as a quality measure in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143:604–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.09.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Szender JB, Frederick PJ, Eng KH, Akers SN, Lele SB, Odunsi K. Evaluation of the national surgical quality improvement program universal surgical risk calculator for a gynecologic oncology service. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:512–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.09.020.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. • Chang SJ, Bristow RE, Chi DS, Cliby WA. Role of aggressive surgical cytoreduction in advanced ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26:336–42. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2015.26.4.336. This article is one of the most prominent contemporary arguments for continued support of aggressive surgical intervention in ovarian cancer.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Mangano DT. Perioperative medicine: NHLBI working group deliberations and recommendations. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004;18:1–6. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2015.26.4.336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sauerland S, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub3.

  9. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Müller J. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003145.pub2.

  10. Aimaq R, Akopian G, Kaufman HS. Surgical site infection rates in laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery. Am Surg. 2011;77:1290–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiran RP, El-Gazzaz GH, Vogel JD, Remzi FH. Laparoscopic approach significantly reduces surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: data from national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:232–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program Fiscal Year 2018 Fact Sheet, https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Downloads/FY2018-HAC-Reduction-Program-Fact-Sheet.pdf.

  13. Díaz-Montes TP, Zahurak ML, Giuntoli RL, Gardner GJ, Bristow RE. Uterine cancer in Maryland: impact of surgeon case volume and other prognostic factors on short-term mortality. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:1043–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.06.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. • Mowat A, Maher C, Ballard E. Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.048. This review provides some of the strongest data to support high-volume surgery in Gynecologic Oncology.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Uppal S, Spencer R, del Carmen M, Rice L, Griggs J. Hospital readmission as a quality measure in ovarian cancer surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:4–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bristow RE, Palis BE, Chi DS, Cliby WA. The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;118:262–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.05.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5331–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.05.025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. • Fader AN, Weise RM, Sinno AK, Tanner EJ, Borah BJ, Moriarty JP, et al. Utilization of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer care. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001180. This article provides some of the strongest data for continued support of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mannschreck D, Matsuno RK, Moriarty JP, Borah BJ, Dowdy SC, Tanner EJ 3rd, et al. Disparities in surgical care among women with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:526–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Conrad LB, Ramirez PT, Burke W, Naumann RW, Ring KL, Munsell MF, et al. Role of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:1121–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001567.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:695–700. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Jernigan AM, Auer M, Fader AN, Escobar PF. Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a review of modalities and the literature. Women’s Heal. 2012;8:239–50. https://doi.org/10.2217/whe.12.13.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nezhat F. Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:S29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:425–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Society of Gynecologic Oncology. SGO Quality Measures, https://www.sgo.org/quality-outcomes-and-research/quality-indicators/.

  26. Mahdi H, Gojayev A, Buechel M, Knight J, SanMarco J, Lockhart D, et al. Surgical site infection in women undergoing surgery for gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:779–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gerestein CG, Damhuis RAM, de Vries M, Reedijk A, Burger CW, Kooi GS. Causes of postoperative mortality after surgery for ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:2799–803. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Matsuo K, Prather CP, Ahn EH, Eno ML, Tierney KE, Yessaian AA, et al. Significance of perioperative infection in survival of patients with ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:245–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e31823bd6db.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. •• Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, Leas B, Stone EC, Kelz RR, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904. These new guidelines from the CDC provide important clinical guidance for surgeons.

  30. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 104: Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Gynecologic Procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1180–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a6d011.

  31. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG, Bolon MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Heal Pharm. 2013;70:195–283. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2013.9999.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cannon JA, Altom LK, Deierhoi RJ, Morris M, Richman JS, Vick CC, et al. Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce surgical site infection following elective colorectal resections. Dis Colon rectum. 2012;55:1160–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182684fac.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Morris MS, Graham LA, Chu DI, Cannon JA, Hawn MT. Oral antibiotic bowel preparation significantly reduces surgical site infection rates and readmission rates in elective colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1034–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kiran RP, Murray ACA, Chiuzan C, Estrada D, Forde K. Combined preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly reduces surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and ileus after colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;262:416–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, Migaly J. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elective colorectal resection: an analysis of colectomy-targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2015;262:331–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nelson RL, Gladman E, Barbateskovic M. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001041.

  37. Taylor JS, Marten CA, Sun CCL, Bodurka DC, Potts K, Nick AM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of the DISINFECT Initiative (Decreasing the Incidence of Surgical INFECTions) in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141:87. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5517-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Johnson MP, Kim SJ, Langstraat CL, Jain S, Habermann EB, Wentink JE, et al. Using bundled interventions to reduce surgical site infection after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:1135–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schiavone MB, Moukarzel L, Leong K, Zhou QC, Afonso AM, Iasonos A, et al. Surgical site infection reduction bundle in patients with gynecologic cancer undergoing colon surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.07.010.

  40. Lippitt M, Fairbairn MG, Matsuno R, Stone R, Tanner EJ 3rd, Wick EC, et al. Outcomes associated with a five-point surgical site infection prevention bundle in women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. In press, 2017.

  41. Rivard C, Slagle E, Nahum R, Isaksson Vogel R, Teoh DGK. Evaluation of the NSQIP surgical risk calculator to predict complications in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137:56–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. The Joint Commission. Surgical Care Improvement Project Core Measure Set [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 16]. Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/Surgical Care Improvement Project.pdf.

  43. Ling ML, Apisarnthanarak A, Jaggi N, Harrington G, Morikane K, Thu LTA, et al. APSIC guide for prevention of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2016;5:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-016-0116-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Erekson EA, Yip SO, Ciarleglio MM, Fried TR. Postoperative complications after gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:785–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822dac5d.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Resar R, Pronovost P, Haraden C, Simmonds T, Rainey T, Nolan T. Using a bundle approach to improve ventilator care processes and reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31:243–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM, Karanicolas PJ, Arcelus JI, Heit JA, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients. Chest. 2012;141:e227S–77S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Caprini JA. Thrombosis risk assessment as a guide to quality patient care. Dis Mon. 2005;51:70–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disamonth.2005.02.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mahdi H, Aljebori Q, Lockart D, Moulton L. Risk of venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic surgery for gynecologic malignancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:1057–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gunderson CC, Thomas ED, Slaughter KN, Farrell R, Ding K, Farris RE, et al. The survival detriment of venous thromboembolism with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134:73–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.04.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. • Barber EL, Clarke-Pearson DL. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in gynecologic oncology surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:420–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.11.036. This article provides some of the strongest evidence in modern prevention of venous thromboembolism that is specific to Gynecologic Oncology.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. • National Cancer Comprehensive Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease, https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/vte.pdf. These new guidelines from the NCCN provide important clinical guidance for all oncologists.

  52. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, Blaivas A, Jimenez D, Bounameaux H, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149:315–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M, Gutterman DD, Schünemann HJ. Executive summary antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141:7S–47S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.1412S3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Lyman GH, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Lee AY, Arcelus JI, Balaban EP, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2189–204. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.1118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee AYY, Levine MN, Baker RI, Bowden C, Kakkar AK, Prins M, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:146–53. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa025313.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wolthuis AM, Bislenghi G, Fieuws S, de Buck van Overstraeten A, Boeckxstaens G, D’Hoore A. Incidence of prolonged postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2016;18:O1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13210.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Doo DW, Guntupalli SR, Corr BR, Sheeder J, Davidson SA, Behbakht K, et al. Comparative surgical outcomes for endometrial cancer patients 65 years old or older staged with robotics or laparotomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3687–94. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4428-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Fujita K, Nagano T, Suzuki A, Sakakibara A, Takahashi S, Hirano T, et al. Incidence of postoperative ileus after paraaortic lymph node dissection in patients with malignant gynecologic tumors. Int J Clin Oncol. 2005;10:187–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-005-0494-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Güngördük K, Özdemir İA, Güngördük Ö, Gülseren V, Gokçü M, Sancı M. Effects of coffee consumption on gut recovery after surgery of gynecological cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:145.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Charoenkwan K, Matovinovic E. Early versus delayed oral fluids and food for reducing complications after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004508.pub4.

  61. Jernigan AM, Chen CCG, Sewell C. A randomized trial of chewing gum to prevent postoperative ileus after laparotomy for benign gynecologic surgery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014;127:279–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.06.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Guay J, Nishimori M, Kopp S. Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, vomiting and pain after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001893.pub2.

  63. Taguchi A, Sharma N, Saleem RM, Sessler DI, Carpenter RL, Seyedsadr M, et al. Selective postoperative inhibition of gastrointestinal opioid receptors. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:935–40. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa010564.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Herzog TJ, Coleman RL, Guerrieri JP, Gabriel K, Du W, Techner L, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study of the safety of alvimopan in patients who undergo simple total abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:445–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.039.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wang X-J, Chi P, Lin H-M, Lu X-R, Huang Y, Xu Z-B, et al. Risk factors for early postoperative small bowel obstruction after elective colon cancer surgery: an observational study of 1,244 consecutive patients. Dig Surg. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1159/000468155.

  66. Smolarek S, Shalaby M, Paolo Angelucci G, Missori G, Capuano I, Franceschilli L, et al. Small-bowel obstruction secondary to adhesions after open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2016;20:e2016.00073. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Tseng JH, Suidan RS, Zivanovic O, Gardner GJ, Sonoda Y, Levine DA, et al. Diverting ileostomy during primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer: associated factors and postoperative outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;142:217–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.035.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Kalogera E, Dowdy SC, Mariani A, Weaver AL, Aletti G, Bakkum-Gamez JN, et al. Multiple large bowel resections: potential risk factor for anastomotic leak. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:213–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Obermair A, Hagenauer S, Tamandl D, Clayton RD, Nicklin JL, Perrin LC, et al. Safety and efficacy of low anterior en bloc resection as part of cytoreductive surgery for patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;83:115–20. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6353.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Richardson DL, Mariani A, Cliby WA. Risk factors for anastomotic leak after recto-sigmoid resection for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:667–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Glasgow MA, Shields K, Vogel RI, Teoh D, Argenta PA. Postoperative readmissions following ileostomy formation among patients with a gynecologic malignancy. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134:561–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.06.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Mendez LE. Iatrogenic injuries in gynecologic cancer surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2001;81:897–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70173-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Huser A-S, Müller D, Brunkhorst V, Kannisto P, Musch M, Kröpfl D, et al. Simulated life-threatening emergency during robotic surgery. J Endourol. 2014;23:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0762.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Gostout BS, Cliby WA. Prevention and management of acute intraoperative bleeding. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;45:481–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003081-200206000-00019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Fischer J. Just do it! Routine cystoscopy should be done at the time of gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:1136–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ibeanu OA, Chesson RR, Echols KT, Nieves M, Busangu F, Nolan TE. Urinary tract injury during hysterectomy based on universal cystoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818f6219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Chi AM, Curran DS, Morgan DM, Fenner DE, Swenson CW. Universal cystoscopy after benign hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:369–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Teeluckdharry B, Gilmour D, Flowerdew G. Urinary tract injury at benign gynecologic surgery and the role of cystoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:1161–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. AAGL. Practice report: practice guidelines for intraoperative cystoscopy in laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:407–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Luketic L, Murji A. Options to evaluate ureter patency at cystoscopy in a world without indigo carmine. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:878–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Kuponiyi O, Alleemudder DI, Latunde-Dada A, Eedarapalli P. Nerve injuries associated with gynaecological surgery. Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;16:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12064.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Maneschi F, Nale R, Tozzi R, Biccirè D, Perrone S, Sarno M. Femoral nerve injury complicating surgery for gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:1112–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Clark RM, Growdon WB, Wiechert A, Boruta D, Del Carmen M, Goodman AK, et al. Patient, treatment and discharge factors associated with hospital readmission within 30 days after surgical cytoreduction for epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:407–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Dessources K, Hou JY, Tergas AI, Burke WM, Ananth CV, Prendergast E, et al. Factors associated with 30-day hospital readmission after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecologie. 2015;125:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000623.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Eskander RN, Chang J, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H, Bristow RE. Evaluation of 30-day hospital readmission after surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer in a medicare population. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:4113–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7743.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Clark RM, Lee MS, Alejandro Rauh-Hain J, Hall T, Boruta DM, Del Carmen MG, et al. Surgical Apgar Score and prediction of morbidity in women undergoing hysterectomy for malignancy. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136:516–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Duska LR, Java JJ, Cohn DE, Burger RA. Risk factors for readmission in patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal carcinoma who are receiving front-line chemotherapy on a clinical trial (GOG 218): an NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study (ADS-1236). Gynecol Oncol. 2015;139:221–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.08.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Eskander R, Chang J, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H, Bristow RE. Hospital readmission (30-day) following surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: Analysis of risk factors and cost using the SEER-Medicare database. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Courtney-Brooks M, Tellawi AR, Scalici J, Duska LR, Jazaeri AA, Modesitt SC, et al. Frailty: an outcome predictor for elderly gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:20–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Doll KM, Snavely AC, Kalinowski A, Irwin DE, Bensen JT, Bae-Jump V, et al. Preoperative quality of life and surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology patients: a new predictor of operative risk? Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:546–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.04.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Liang MI, Rosen MA, Rath KS, Clements AE, Backes FJ, Eisenhauer EL, et al. Reducing readmissions after robotic surgical management of endometrial cancer: a potential for improved quality care. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:508–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.09.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Dorney KM, Growdon WB, Clemmer J, Rauh-Hain JA, Hall TR, Diver E, et al. Patient, treatment and discharge factors associated with hospital readmission within 30 days after surgery for vulvar cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:136–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.11.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Brooke BS, Dominici F, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA, Schneider E, Pawlik TM. Variations in surgical outcomes associated with hospital compliance with safety practices. Surgery. 2012;151:651–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2011.12.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Odonkor CA, Hurst P, Kondo N, Makary MA, Pronovost PJ. Halting the revolving door: how a focus on patient- and community-level risks may help curb readmissions after surgery. Am J Med Qual. 2014;29:557. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860614546614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Pronovost PJ, Bo-Linn GW. Preventing patient harms through systems of care. JAMA. 2012;308:769–70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.9537.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Nakayama JM, Ou JP, Friedman C, Smolkin ME, Duska LR. The risk factors of readmission in postoperative gynecologic oncology patients at a single institution. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:1697–703. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Stitzenberg KB, Chang Y, Smith AB, Nielsen ME. Exploring the burden of inpatient readmissions after major cancer surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:455–64. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.5938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Pasko DN, Boone JD, Thomas ED, Huh WK, Alvarez RD, Leath CA, et al. Are hospital readmissions an accurate measure of quality cancer care in gynecologic oncology patients? Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137:82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Barber EL, Rossi EC, Gehrig PA. Surgical readmission and survival in women with ovarian cancer: Are short term quality metrics incentivizing decreased long term survival? Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Kalogera E, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Jankowski CJ, Trabuco E, Lovely JK, Dhanorker S, et al. Enhanced recovery in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:319–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829aa780.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Chapman JS, Roddy E, Ueda S, Brooks R, Chen L, Chen L. Enhanced recovery pathways for improving outcomes after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:138–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Modesitt SC, Sarosiek BM, Trowbridge ER, Redick DL, Shah PM, Thiele RH, et al. Enhanced recovery implementation in major gynecologic surgeries. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:457–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001555.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Dickson EL, Stockwell E, Geller MA, Vogel RI, Mullany SA, Ghebre R, et al. Enhanced recovery program and length of stay after laparotomy on a gynecologic oncology service. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:1. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. • Nelson G, Altman AD, Nick A, Meyer LA, Ramirez PT, Achtari C, et al. Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS?) Society recommendations-Part I. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140:313–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.11.015. This 2-part series article provides relevant and contemporary clinical guidance for surgical management by Gynecologic Oncologists.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. • Nelson G, Altman AD, Nick A, Meyer LA, Ramirez PT, Achtari C, et al. Guidelines for postoperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations-Part II. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140:323–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.12.019. This 2-part series article provides relevant and contemporary clinical guidance for surgical management by Gynecologic Oncologists.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Weaver SJ, Lofthus J, Sawyer M, Greer L, Opett K, Reynolds C, et al. A collaborative learning network approach to improvement: The CUSP Learning Network. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41:147–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. The Joint Commission. Improving hand-off communications: meeting national patient safety goal 2E. Jt Comm Perspect Patient Saf. 2006;6:9.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Pronovost P, Jha AK. Did hospital engagement networks actually improve care? N Engl J Med. 2014;371:691–3. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1405800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Pronovost PJ, Bienvenu OJ. From shame to guilt to love. JAMA. 2015;314:2507. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.11521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Aveling EL, Parker M, Dixon-Woods M. What is the role of individual accountability in patient safety? A multi-site ethnographic study. Sociol Heal Illn. 2016;38:216–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Kluger AN, Denisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:254–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Macrae C. The problem with incident reporting. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:71–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Dixon-Woods M, Pronovost PJ. Patient safety and the problem of many hands. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:485–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005232.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Thompson DF. Moral responsibility of public officials: the problem of many hands. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1980;74:905–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. McGlynn EA, McDonald KM, Cassel CK. Measurement is essential for improving diagnosis and reducing diagnostic error. JAMA. 2015;314:2501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. McGlynn EA, Kerr EA. Creating safe harbors for quality measurement innovation and improvement. JAMA. 2016;315:129. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13453.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Bilimoria KY, Chung J, Ju MH, Haut ER, Bentrem DJ, Ko CY, et al. Evaluation of surveillance bias and the validity of the venous thromboembolism quality measure. JAMA. 2013;310:1482. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.280048.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Winters BD, Bharmal A, Wilson RF, Zhang A, Engineer L, Defoe D, et al. Validity of the agency for health care research and quality patient safety indicators and the centers for medicare and medicaid hospital-acquired conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Care. 2016;54:1105–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0000000000000550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Jha A, Pronovost P. Toward a safer health care system. JAMA. 2016;315:1831–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.3448.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Halverson AL, Casey JT, Andersson J, Anderson K, Park C, Rademaker AW, et al. Communication failure in the operating room. Surgery. 2011;149:305–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Gardezi F, Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, Orser B, Baker GR. Silence, power and communication in the operating room. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65:1390–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04994.x.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Garrett JH. Effective perioperative communication to enhance patient care. AORN J. 2016;104:111–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2016.06.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Duclos A, Peix JL, Piriou V, Occelli P, Denis A, Bourdy S, et al. Cluster randomized trial to evaluate the impact of team training on surgical outcomes. Br J Surg. 2016;103:1804–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. McCulloch P, Morgan L, Flynn L, Rivero-Arias O, Martin G, Collins G, et al. Safer delivery of surgical services: a programme of controlled before-and-after intervention studies with pre-planned pooled data analysis. Program Grants Appl Res. 2016;4:1–170. https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar04190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Storsveen AS, Weisbrod CA, Deschamps C, Koch MB, et al. A multidisciplinary team approach to retained foreign objects. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35:123–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Stawicki SP, Evans DC, Cipolla J, Seamon MJ, Lukaszczyk JJ, Prosciak MP, et al. Retained surgical foreign bodies: a comprehensive review of risks and preventive strategies. Scand J Surg. 2009;98:8–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/145749690909800103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kelly Gynecologic Oncology Service, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe St, Phipps 281, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Melissa H. Lippitt, Amanda N. Fader & MaryAnn B. Wilbur

Authors
  1. Melissa H. Lippitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda N. Fader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. MaryAnn B. Wilbur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to MaryAnn B. Wilbur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Melissa Lippitt, Amanda Fader, and MaryAnn Wilbur declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gynecologic Oncology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lippitt, M.H., Fader, A.N. & Wilbur, M.B. Preventable Surgical Harm in Gynecologic Oncology: Optimizing Quality and Patient Safety. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 6, 298–309 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-017-0226-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-017-0226-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation