Search

Background: For patients who may permanently or temporarily lose their ability to communicate preferences, advance care planning is a critical mechanism to guide medical decision-making but is currently underused among surgical patients., Methods: A resident-led quality improvement project, including education and performance measurement, was conducted on an emergency general surgery service to increase the completion of inpatient advance care planning notes using a specialized template in the electronic health record. Advance care planning documentation was defined as either preadmission advance care planning documentation (eg, advance directive) or inpatient advance care planning (use of the electronic health record template). Data from patients admitted to the emergency general surgery service for 12+ hours were analyzed, and baseline data (July 2020 to June 2021) were compared with data from the intervention period (July 2021 to June 2022). The chart review evaluated the content of the inpatient advance care planning documentation from the intervention period., Results: The frequency of inpatient advance care planning documentation increased (9.3%, n = 56 to 16.6%, n = 92, P < .001) with a greater contribution of inpatient advance care planning notes by the surgery team (16.7% to 55.4%) in the intervention period. Content analysis indicated that 79.0% of inpatient advance care planning notes listed preferences for life-sustaining therapy, 78.3% listed surrogacy, 57.3% listed overall health goals, and 50.3% listed treatment goals specific to the surgical encounter., Conclusion: Although a resident-led quality improvement project contributed to greater adoption of standardized inpatient advance care planning documentation on an emergency general surgery service, progress was slow, and integration into standard work was not achieved. Future efforts are needed to better understand the integration of essential advance care planning elements into workflows and to establish inclusive educational programming to prepare all team members for conducting and documenting advance care planning conversations., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding the differences in how patient complexity varies across surgical specialties can inform policy decisions about appropriate resource allocation and reimbursement. This study evaluated variation in patient complexity across surgical specialties and the correlation between complexity and work relative value units., Study Design: The 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for cases involving otolaryngology and general, neurologic, vascular, cardiac, thoracic, urologic, orthopedic, and plastic surgery. A total of 10 domains of patient complexity were measured: American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥4, number of major comorbidities, emergency operation, major complications, concurrent procedures, additional procedures, length of stay, non-home discharge, readmission, and mortality. Specialties were ranked by their complexity domains and the domains summed to create an overall complexity score. Patient complexity then was evaluated for correlation with work relative value units., Results: Overall, 936,496 cases were identified. Cardiac surgery had the greatest total complexity score and was most complex across 4 domains: American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥4 (78.5%), 30-day mortality (3.4%), major complications (56.9%), and mean length of stay (9.8 days). Vascular surgery had the second greatest complexity score and ranked the greatest on the domains of major comorbidities (2.7 comorbidities) and 30-day readmissions (10.1%). The work relative value units did not correlate with overall complexity score (Spearman's ρ = 0.07; P < .01). Although vascular surgery had the second most complex patients, it ranked fifth greatest in median work relative value units. Similarly, general surgery was the fifth most complex but had the second-least median work relative value units., Conclusion: Substantial differences exist between patient complexity across specialties, which do not correlate with work relative value units. Physician effort is determined largely by patient complexity, which is not captured appropriately by the current work relative value units., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: As part of a broader effort aimed at improving hospital safety, a large coalition of employers, the Leapfrog Group, will soon require hospitals caring for their employees to meet volume standards for 5 high-risk surgical procedures. We estimated the potential benefits of full nationwide implementation of these volume standards. METHODS. Using data from Nationwide Inpatient Sample and other sources, we first estimated the total number of each of the 5 procedures-coronary-artery bypass graft, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary angioplasty, esophagectomy, and carotid endarterectomy-performed each year in hospitals in US metropolitan areas. (Leapfrog exempts hospitals in rural areas to avoid access issues.) We then projected the effectiveness of volume standards (in terms of relative risks of mortality) for each procedure using data from a published structured literature review., Results: With full implementation nationwide, the Leapfrog volume standards would save 2581 lives. Of the procedures, volume standards would save the most lives with coronary-artery bypass graft (1486), followed by abdominal aortic-aneurysm repair (464), coronary angioplasty (345), esophagectomy (168), and carotid endarterectomy (118). In our estimates of the number of lives saved, we considered assumptions about how many patients would be affected and the effectiveness of volume standards (ie, strength of underlying volume-outcome relationships with each procedure)., Conclusions: If the Leapfrog volume standards are successfully implemented, employers and health-care purchasers could prevent many surgical deaths by requiring hospital volume standards for high-risk procedures.