Advertisement

The Burning Platform: Improving Surgical Quality and Keeping Patients Safe

  • Juan A. Sanchez
  • Kevin W. Lobdell
Chapter

Abstract

The foundation of a health delivery system must include a patient-centered approach which emphasizes quality and patient safety. Remarkable change is under way in healthcare and the surgical environment is, in many ways, “ground zero” in this revolution given its “target-rich” environment. The full continuum of care before, during, and after surgery is expensive, fragmented, and associated with a high number of complications. We believe that the current segmented care model must transition to an integrated care model based on excellent coordination throughout the entire perioperative system, from the minute the surgeon and the patient decide that a procedure is needed until the patient is discharged and transferred to his or her primary care provider or medical home. Experience and acquired knowledge from other scientific disciplines and industries which have successfully addressed and mitigated risky systems and variable quality can be rapidly applied to the transformation of contemporary surgical practice. Although the science of measuring the quality of surgical care remains in its infancy, surgical leaders have been at the forefront of reform and improvement. This chapter aims to inform, inspire, and motivate all those involved in caring for the surgical patient to consider how their environments can be redesigned and refocused on patient safety, reliability, and effectiveness both in and out of the operating room.

Keywords

Surgical care Quality Medical errors Variation in healthcare Overuse Underuse Healthcare complexity 

References

  1. 1.
    McPherson K, Wennberg JE, Hovind OB, Clifford P. Small area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: an international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:1310–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wennberg JE, Cooper MM, eds. The quality of medical care in the United States: a report on the Medicare program. In: The Dartmouth atlas of health care 1999. Chicago: American Health Association; 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323(7313):625–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):517–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Reason J. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Runciman WB. Shared meanings: preferred terms and definitions for safety and quality concepts. Med J Aust. 2006;184(10 Suppl):S41–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hempel S, Maggard-Gibbons M, Nguyen DK, Dawes AJ, Miake-Lye I, Beroes JM, Booth MJ, Miles JN, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. Wrong-site surgery, retained surgical items, and surgical fires : a systematic review of surgical never events. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(8):796–805.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shojania KG, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, et al. Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Volume 1–Series Overview and Methodology Technical Review 9 (Contract No 290-02-0017 to the Stanford University–UCSF Evidence-based Practice Center) Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004. AHRQ Publication No. 04-0051–1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barach P, Weinger M. Trauma team performance. In: Wilson WC, Grande CM, Hoyt DB, editors. Trauma: emergency resuscitation and perioperative anesthesia management, vol. 1. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2007. p. 101–13. ISBN 100-8247-2916-6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barach P, Berwick D. Patient safety and the reliability of health care systems. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(12):997–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barach P, Small DS. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. Br Med J. 2000;320:753–63.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levinson DR. Hospital incident reporting systems do not capture most patient harm. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General; 2012.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leape LL. Reporting adverse event. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(20):1633–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Feijter JM, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ, Koopmans RP. A comprehensive overview of medical error in hospitals using incident-reporting systems, patient complaints and chart review of inpatient deaths. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31125.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu AW, Pronovost P, Morlock L. ICU incident reporting systems. J Crit Care. 2002;17(2):86–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bilimoria KY, Kmiecik TE, DaRosa DA, Halverson A, Eskandari MK, Bell Jr RH, Soper NJ, Wayne JD. Development of an online morbidity, mortality, and near-miss reporting system to identify patterns of adverse events in surgical patients. Arch Surg. 2009;144(4):305–11. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.5; discussion 311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chassin MR, Galvin RW, The National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. The urgent need to improve health care quality. JAMA. 1998;280(11):1000–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To Err. Is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amalberti R, Auroy Y, Berwick DM, Barach P. Five system barriers to achieving ultra-safe health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(9):756–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Conklin A, Vilamovska A, de Vries H, Hatziandreu E. Improving patient safety in the EU: assessing the expected effects of three policy areas for future action. Cambridge: RAND Corporation; 2008.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ. 2004;170(11):1678–85.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levinson DR. Adverse events in hospitals: national incidence among Medicare beneficiaries. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, November 2010 (OEI-06-09-00090).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacDermaid LJ. First, do no harm: medical error in Canada; 2005.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals: principal findings from a National Survey. New Zealand Ministry of Health. December 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, et al. The quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust. 1995;163:458–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riddle DL, Perera RA, Jiranek WA, Dumenci L. Using surgical appropriateness criteria to examine outcomes of total knee arthroplasty in a United States sample. Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67(3):349–57.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park RE, Fink A, Brook RH, et al. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986;76(7):766–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Broder MS, Payne-Simon L, Brook RH. Measures of surgical quality: what will patients know by 2005? J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11(3):209–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape LL, et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med Care. 1996;34(6):512–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kahan JP, Bernstein SJ, Leape LL, et al. Measuring the necessity of medical procedures. Med Care. 1994;32(4):357–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ko CY, Shekelle PG. The appropriateness method has acceptable reliability and validity for assessing overuse and underuse of surgical procedures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1133–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leape LL, Berwick DM. Five years after to err is human: what have we learned? JAMA. 2005;293(19):2384–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brady J, Ho K, Clancy CM. The quality and disparities reports: why is progress so slow? Am J Med Qual. 2008;23(5):396–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanchez J, Barach P. High reliability organizations and surgical microsystems: re-engineering surgical care. Surg Clin North Am. 2012;92(1):1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2011.12.005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Panesar SS, Carson-Stevens A, Salvilla SA, Sheikh A. Patient safety and healthcare improvement at a glance. Chichester: Wiley; 2014.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery. 1999;126(1):66–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seiden S, Barach P. Wrong-side, wrong procedure, and wrong patient adverse events: are they preventable? Arch Surg. 2006;141:1–9.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Rowlands J, et al. Video observation to map hand contact and bacterial transmission in operating rooms. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(7):698–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kreideit A, Kalkman C, Barach P. Role of handwashing and perioperative infections. Br J Anesth. 2011. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer162.
  45. 45.
    Pettigrew MM, Johnson JK, Harris AD. The human microbiota: novel targets for hospital-acquired infections and antibiotic resistance. Ann Epidemiol. 2016;26(5):342–7. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.02.007.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Spencer A, Sward D, Ward J. Lessons from the pioneers: reporting healthcare-associated infections. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislators; 2010.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Semmelweis Ignaz (September 15, 1983). Etiology, concept and prophylaxis of childbed fever (translated by Carter, K. Codell). University of Wisconsin Press; 1861. ISBN: 0-299-09364-6.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hanninen OM, Farago M, Monos E. Ignaz Semmelweis: the prophet of bacteriology. Infect Control. 1983;4(5):367–70.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Patel MR, Greiner MA, DiMartino LD, et al. Geographic variation in carotid revascularization among Medicare beneficiaries, 2003–2006. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(14):1218–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Snyder-Ramos SA, Möhnle P, Weng Y-S, Böttiger BW, Kulier A, Levin J, Mangano DT, Investigators of the Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia and MCSPI Research Group. The ongoing variability in blood transfusion practices in cardiac surgery. Transfusion. 2008;48:1284–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01666.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Weinstein JN, Bronner KK, Morgan TS, Wennberg JE. Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;suppl variation:(suppl Web exclusives) VAR81-VAR89.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sineshaw HM, Wu XC, Flanders WD, Osarogiagbon RU, Jemal A. Variations in receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by state. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(6):880–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chodosh J, Solomon DH, Roth CP, Chang JT, MacLean CH, Ferrell BA, Shekelle PG, Wenger NS. The quality of medical care provided to vulnerable older patients with chronic pain. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(5):756–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jha AK, Fisher ES, Li Z, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Racial trends in the use of major procedures among the elderly. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(7):683–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wenger NS, Solomon DH, Roth CP, MacLean CH, Saliba D, Kamberg CJ, Rubenstein LZ, Young RT, Sloss EM, Louie R, Adams J, Chang JT, Venus PJ, Schnelle JF, Shekelle PG. The quality of medical care provided to vulnerable community-dwelling older patients. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(9):740–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Epstein AM, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Gatsonis C, Leape LL, Piana RN. Race and gender disparities in rates of cardiac revascularization: do they reflect appropriate use of procedures or problems in quality of care? Med Care. 2003;41(11):1240–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Reames BN, Shubeck SP, Birkmeyer JD. Strategies for reducing regional variation in the use of surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2014;259(4):616–27. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000248.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Leape LL, Hilborne LH, Park RE, et al. The appropriateness of use of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in New York State. JAMA. 1993;269(6):753–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    McArdle CS, Hole D. Impact of variability among surgeons on postoperative morbidity and mortality and ultimate survival. BMJ. 1991;302:1501.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Patel HD, Humphreys E, Trock BJ, Han M, Carter HB. Practice patterns and individual variability of surgeons performing radical prostatectomy at a high volume academic center. J Urol. 2015;193(3):812–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Barach P, Lipshultz S. The beneifts and hazards of publicly reported quality outcomes. Prog Pediatr Cardiol. 2016;42:45–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ppedcard.2016.06.001.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    McPherson K, Strong PM, Epstein A, Jones L. Regional variations in the use of common surgical procedures: within and between England and Wales, Canada and the United States of America. Soc Sci Med A. 1981;15(3 Pt 1):273–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Feng TS, Perkins CE, Wood LN, Eilber KS, Wang JK, Bresee C, Anger JT. Preoperative testing for urethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence: overuse, underuse and cost implications. J Urol. 2016;195(1):120–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lawson EH, Gibbons MM, Ingraham AM, Shekelle PG, Ko CY. Appropriateness criteria to assess variations in surgical procedure use in the United States. Arch Surg. 2011;146:1433–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    O’Connor GT, Olmstead EM, Nugent WC, Leavitt BJ, Clough RA, Weldner PW, Charlesworth DC, Chaisson K, Sisto D, Nowicki ER, Cochran RP, Malenka DJ. Appropriateness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performed in northern New England. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:2323–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Brook RH. Assessing the appropriateness of care: its time has come. JAMA. 2009;302(9):997–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD. Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(13):966–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Silverstein MD, Ballard DJ. Expert panel assessment of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: global judgement versus probability estimation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998;3(3):134–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Yermilov I, McGory ML, Shekelle PW, Ko CY, Maggard MA. Appropriateness criteria for bariatric surgery: beyond the NIH guidelines. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009;17(8):1521–7.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ferguson JH. Research on the delivery of medical care using hospital firms. Proceedings of a workshop. April 30 and May 1, 1990; Bethesda, Maryland. Med Care. 1991;29(7 Supplement):1–2.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Institute of Medicine. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Williamson J, et al. Medical Practice Information Demonstration Project: Final Report. Office of the Asst. Secretary of Health, DHEW, Contract #282-77-0068GS. Baltimore: Policy Research; 1979.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Khuri SF. Safety, quality, and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Am Surg. 2006;72(11):994–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Porter R. The Cambridge illustrated history of medicine. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996. p. 226.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tooley SA. The history of nursing in the British Empire. London: S. H. Bousfield; 1906. p. 96.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bernstein SJ, McGlynn EA, Siu AL, Roth CP, Sherwood MJ, Keesey JW, Kosecoff J, Hicks NR, Brook RH. The appropriateness of hysterectomy. A comparison of care in seven health plans. Health Maintenance Organization Quality of Care Consortium. JAMA. 1993;269(18):2398–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Goodney PP, Travis LL, Nallamothu BK, et al. Variation in the use of lower extremity vascular procedures for critical limb ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(1):94–102. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.962233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lee CN, Ko CY. Beyond outcomes—the appropriateness of surgical care. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1580–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Barach P, Lipshultz S. Readmitting children with heart failure: the importance of communication, coordination, and continuity of care. J Pediatr. 2016;177:13–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.07.027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Johnson J, Haskell H, Barach P. The big picture: a terminally ill patient in a fragmented system. In: Johnson J, Haskell H, Barach P, editors. Case studies in patient safety: foundations for core competencies. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2015. ISBN 9781449681548.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Johnson J, Haskell H, Barach P. The voice that is missing: a mother’s journey in patient safety advocacy. In: Johnson J, Haskell H, Barach P, editors. Case studies in patient safety: foundations for core competencies. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2015. ISBN 9781449681548.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nesbitt S, Palomarez RE. Review: increasing awareness and education on health disparities for health care providers. Ethn Dis. 2016;26(2):181–90.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Groene RO, et al. “It’s like two worlds apart”: an analysis of vulnerable patient handover practices at discharge from hospital. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21 Suppl 1:i65–75. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001174.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Sarel D, Rodriguez B, Barach P. Childbirth hospital selection process: are consumers really in charge? Mark Health Serv. 2005;25(1):14–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Donabedian A. Twenty years of research on the quality of medical care: 1964–1984. Eval Health Prof. 1985;8(3):243–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lilford R, Chilton PJ, Hemming K, Brown C, Girling A, Barach P. Evaluating policy and service interventions: framework to guide selection and interpretation of study end points. BMJ. 2010;341:c4413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    D’Agostino RS, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, Paone G, Rankin JS, Han JM, McDonald D, Shahian DM. The society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac surgery database: 2016 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(1):24–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Neuhauser D. Ernest Amory Codman MD. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(1):104–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Darr K. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposal to pay for performance. Hosp Top. 2003;81(2):30–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Cassin B, Barach P. Making sense of root cause analysis investigations of surgery-related adverse events. Surg Clin North Am. 2012;92(1):101–15. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2011.12.008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, Wang Y, Han LF, Ingber MJ, Roman S, Normand SL. An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2006;113(13):1683–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Glance LG, Dick A, Osler TM, Li Y, Mukamel DB. Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: the case of the New York State cardiac surgery report card. Med Care. 2006;44(4):311–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, Hebert L, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt H. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(6):377–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryAscension Saint Agnes Hospital, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety & Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Sanger Heart & Vascular InstituteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations