Search

Background: Trends towards day case surgery and enhanced recovery mean that postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) may increasingly arise after hospital discharge. However, hospital data alone are unable to capture adverse events that occur outside of the hospital setting. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has suggested the use of primary care data to quantify hospital care-related VTE. Data in surgical patients using these resources is lacking. The aim of this study was to measure VTE risk and associated mortality in general surgery using linked primary care and hospital databases, to improve our understanding of harm from VTE that arises beyond hospital stay. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study using nationally linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD), hospital administrative (Hospital Episodes Statistics, HES), population statistics (Office of National Statistics, ONS) and National Cancer Intelligence Network databases. Routinely collected information was used to quantify 90-day in-hospital VTE, 90-day post-discharge VTE and 90-day mortality in adults undergoing one of twelve general surgical procedures between 1st April 1997 and 31st March 2012. The earliest postoperative recording of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in CPRD, HES and ONS was counted in each patient. Covariates from multiple datasets were combined to derive detailed prediction models for VTE and mortality. Limitation included the capture of VTE presenting to healthcare only and the lack of information on adherence to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis as there was no data linkage to hospital pharmacy records. Results: There were 981 VTE events captured within 90 days of surgery in 168005 procedures (23.7/1000 patient-years). Overall, primary care data increased the detection of postoperative VTE by a factor of 1.38 (981/710) when compared with using HES and ONS only. Total VTE rates ranged between 3.2/1000 patient-years in haemorrhoidectomy to 118.3/1000 patient-years in esophagogastric resection. Predictors of VTE included emergency surgery (OR = 1.91 95%CI 1.60–2.28, p<0.001), age (OR = 1.02 95%CI 1.02–1.03, p<0.001), body mass index (OR = 1.03 95%CI 1.01–1.04, p<0.001), previous VTE (OR = 8.07 95%CI 6.61–9.83, p<0.001), length of stay (OR = 1.00 95%CI 1.00–1.00, p = 0.007) and cancer stages II (OR = 1.38 95%CI 1.03–1.87, p = 0.033), III (OR = 1.50 95%CI 1.11–2.01, p = 0.008) and IV (OR = 1.63 95%CI 1.03–2.59, p = 0.038). Major organ resections had the greatest odds of VTE when adjusted for other risk factors including length of hospital stay. Post-discharge VTE accounted for 64.8% (636/981) of all recorded VTE. In-hospital VTE (165.4/1000 patient-years) was recorded more frequently than post-discharge VTE (16.2/1000 patient-years). Both in-hospital (OR = 2.07 95%CI 1.51–2.85, p<0.001) and post-discharge (OR = 4.03 95%CI 2.95–5.51, p<0.001) VTE independently predicted 90-day mortality. In patients who died and VTE was recorded on HES or CPRD (n = 56), VTE was one of the causes of death in 37.5% (21/56) of cases. Conclusions: A large proportion of postoperative VTE was detected in primary care. Evaluation of linked databases was a useful way of measuring postoperative VTE at population level. These resources identified a significant association between post-discharge VTE and mortality in general surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) collects reports about patient safety incidents in England. Government regulators use NRLS data to assess the safety of hospitals. This study aims to examine whether annual hospital incident reporting rates can be used as a surrogate indicator of individual hospital safety. Secondly assesses which hospital characteristics are correlated with high incident reporting rates and whether a high reporting hospital is safer than those lower reporting hospitals. Finally, it assesses which health-care professionals report more incidents of patient harm, which report more near miss incidents and what hospital factors encourage reporting. These findings may suggest methods for increasing the utility of reporting systems. Methods: This study used a mix methods approach for assessing NRLS data. The data were investigated using Pareto analysis and regression models to establish which patients are most vulnerable to reported harm. Hospital factors were correlated with institutional reporting rates over one year to examine what factors influenced reporting. Staff survey findings regarding hospital safety culture were correlated with reported rates of incidents causing harm; no harm and death to understand what barriers influence error disclosure. Findings: 5,879,954 incident reports were collected from acute hospitals over the decade. 70.3% of incidents produced no harm to the patient and 0.9% were judged by the reporter to have caused severe harm or death. Obstetrics and Gynaecology reported the most no harm events [OR 1.61(95%CI: 1.12 to 2.27), p<0.01] and pharmacy was the hospital location where most near-misses were captured [OR 3.03(95%CI: 2.04 to 4.55), p<0.01]. Clinicians were significantly more likely to report death than other staff [OR 3.04(95%CI: 2.43 to 3.80) p<0.01]. A higher ratio of clinicians to beds correlated with reduced rate of harm reported [RR = -1.78(95%Cl: -3.33 to -0.23), p = 0.03]. Litigation claims per bed were significantly negatively associated with incident reports. Patient satisfaction and mortality outcomes were not significantly associated with reporting rates. Staff survey responses revealed that keeping reports confidential, keeping staff informed about incidents and giving feedback on safety initiatives increased reporting rates [r = 0.26 (p<0.01), r = 0.17 (p = 0.04), r = 0.23 (p = 0.01), r = 0.20 (p = 0.02)]. Conclusion: The NRLS is the largest patient safety reporting system in the world. This study did not demonstrate many hospital characteristics to significantly influence overall reporting rate. There were no association between size of hospital, number of staff, mortality outcomes or patient satisfaction outcomes and incident reporting rate. The study did show that hospitals where staff reported more incidents had reduced litigation claims and when clinician staffing is increased fewer incidents reporting patient harm are reported, whilst near misses remain the same. Certain specialties report more near misses than others, and doctors report more harm incidents than near misses. Staff survey results showed that open environments and reduced fear of punitive response increases incident reporting. We suggest that reporting rates should not be used to assess hospital safety. Different healthcare professionals focus on different types of safety incidents and focusing on these areas whilst creating a responsive, confidential learning environment will increase staff engagement with error disclosure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]