Search

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are an important emerging metric increasingly utilised in clinical, research and registry settings. These outcomes, while vital, are underutilised and require refinement for the specific patient population of those undergoing bariatric surgery. This study aimed to investigate and compare how pre-surgical patients, post-surgical patients, and healthcare practitioners evaluate patient-reported outcomes of bariatric surgery to identify outcomes that are considered most important., Methods: A modified Delphi survey was distributed to patients pre- and post-surgery, and to a variety of healthcare practitioners involved in bariatric care. Across two rounds, participants were asked to rate a variety of physical and psychosocial outcomes of bariatric surgery from 0 (Not Important) to 10 (Extremely Important). Outcomes rated 8-10 by at least 70% of participants were considered highly important (prioritised). The highest-rated outcomes were compared between the three groups as well as between medical and allied health practitioner subgroups., Results: 20 pre-surgical patients, 95 post-surgical patients, and 28 healthcare practitioners completed both rounds of the questionnaire. There were 58 outcomes prioritised, with 21 outcomes (out of 90, 23.3%) prioritised by all three groups, 13 (14.4%) by two groups, and 24 (26.7%) prioritised by a single group or subgroup. Unanimously prioritised outcomes included 'Co-morbidities', 'General Physical Health', 'Overall Quality of Life' and 'Overall Mental Health'. Discordant outcomes included 'Fear of Weight Regain', 'Suicidal Thoughts', 'Addictive Behaviours', and 'Experience of Stigma or Discrimination'., Conclusion: While there was considerable agreement between stakeholder groups on many outcomes, there remain several outcomes with discordant importance valuations that must be considered. In particular, healthcare practitioners prioritised 20 outcomes that were not prioritised by patients, emphasising the range of priorities across stakeholder groups. Future work will consider these priorities to ensure resulting measures encompass all important outcomes and are beneficial and valid for end users., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The length of a patient's stay (LOS) in a hospital is one metric used to compare the quality of care, as a longer LOS may flag higher complication rates or less efficient processes. A meaningful comparison of LOS can only occur if the expected average length of stay (ALOS) is defined first. This study aimed to define the expected ALOS of primary and conversion bariatric surgery in Australia and to quantify the effect of patient, procedure, system, and surgeon factors on ALOS., Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Bariatric Surgery Registry of 63 604 bariatric procedures performed in Australia. The primary outcome measure was the expected ALOS for primary and conversion bariatric procedures. The secondary outcome measures quantified the change in ALOS for bariatric surgery resulting from patient, procedure, hospital, and surgeon factors., Results: Uncomplicated primary bariatric surgery had an ALOS (SD) of 2.30 (1.31) days, whereas conversion procedures had an ALOS (SD) of 2.71 (2.75) days yielding a mean difference (SEM) in ALOS of 0.41 (0.05) days, P < 0.001. The occurrence of any defined adverse event extended the ALOS of primary and conversion procedures by 1.14 days (CI 95% 1.04-1.25), P < 0.001 and 2.33 days (CI 95% 1.54-3.11), P < 0.001, respectively. Older age, diabetes, rural home address, surgeon operating volume and hospital case volume increased the ALOS following bariatric surgery., Conclusions: Our findings have defined Australia's expected ALOS following bariatric surgery. Increased patient age, diabetes, rural living, procedural complications and surgeon and hospital case volume exerted a small but significant increase in ALOS., Study Type: Retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data., (© 2023 The Authors. ANZ Journal of Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Purpose: This study aims to determine if the hospital efficiency, safety and health outcomes are equal in patients who receive bariatric surgery in government-funded hospitals (GFH) versus privately funded hospitals (PFH)., Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Australia and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry of 14,862 procedures (2134 GFH and 12,728 PFH) from 33 hospitals (8 GFH and 25 PFH) performed in Victoria, Australia, between January 1st, 2015, and December 31st, 2020. Outcome measures included the difference in efficacy (weight loss, diabetes remission), safety (defined adverse event and complications) and efficiency (hospital length of stay) between the two health systems., Results: GFH treated a higher risk patient group who were older by a mean (SD) 2.4 years (0.27), P < 0.001; had a mean 9.0 kg (0.6) greater weight at time of surgery, P < 0.001; and a higher prevalence of diabetes at day of surgery OR = 2.57 (CI 95% 2.29-2.89), P < 0.001. Despite these baseline differences, both GFH and PFH yielded near identical remission of diabetes which was stable up to 4 years post-operatively (57%). There was no statistically significant difference in defined adverse events between the GFH and PFH (OR = 1.24 (CI 95% 0.93-1.67), P = 0.14). Both healthcare settings demonstrated that similar covariates affect length of stay (LOS) (diabetes, conversion bariatric procedures and defined adverse event); however, these covariates had a greater effect on LOS in GFH compared to PFH., Conclusions: Bariatric surgery performed in GFH and PFH yields comparable health outcomes (metabolic and weight loss) and safety. There was a small but statistically significant increased LOS following bariatric surgery in GFH., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Patient-reported measures are an important emerging metric in outcome monitoring; however, they remain ill-defined and underutilized in bariatric clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patient-reported measures employed in bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, including barriers to their implementation and to what extent clinicians are receptive to their use., Methods: An online survey was distributed to all bariatric surgeons actively contributing to the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry (n = 176). Participants reported their use of patient-reported measures and identified the most important and useful outcomes of patient-reported data for clinical practice., Results: Responses from 64 participants reported on 120 public and private bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Most participants reported no collection of any patient-reported measure (39 of 64; 60.9%), citing insufficient staff time or resources as the primary barrier to the collection of both patient-reported experience measures (34 of 102 practices; 33.3%) and patient-reported outcome measures (30 of 84 practices; 35.7%). Participants indicated data collection by the Registry would be useful (47 of 57; 82.5%), highlighting the most valuable application to be a monitoring tool, facilitating increased understanding of patient health needs, increased reporting of symptoms, and enhanced patient-physician communication., Conclusion: Despite the current lack of patient-reported measures, there is consensus that such data would be valuable in bariatric practices. Widespread collection of patient-reported measures by registries could improve the collective quality of the data, while avoiding implementation barriers faced by individual surgeons and hospitals., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose of Review: Clinical registries systematically collect prospective information about patients with a particular medical condition, who have had a medical device implanted or who have undergone a particular procedure. When these variables are collected with pre-defined quality indices included, the benched-marked risk-adjusted data may be a valuable resource for providing feedback on outcomes, including performance, to practitioners, patients, health services and device manufacturers., Recent Findings: There are examples of feedback from clinical registries positively influencing patient care. The Australian National Joint Registry identified a poorly performing hip prosthesis which was ultimately withdrawn from the market. Feedback from the Victorian State Prostate Cancer Registry has contributed to improved patient care and fewer positive surgical margins noted over a 5-year reporting period. There are several national and regional registries collecting information on patients undergoing bariatric surgery, however, few currently focus on quality outcome measures. Whilst, current bariatric registries have contributed to improved understanding of some of the clinical situations relating to bariatric surgery, as well as developing composite risk scores and measuring quality cultures, they have not as yet demonstrably directly influenced patient care. This may reflect the fact that many of the registries do not hold data that are mature enough for proper analysis, but may also reflect problems with systematic data collection, bias from missing results and lack of appropriate funding. It will be important in the future that bariatric surgery registries actively seek to measure and validate their contribution to patient outcomes.

This review will provide an overview of the currently available approaches to obesity management available in Australia, including the various approaches to lifestyle intervention, in addition to evaluating the safety and efficacy of adjuvant therapies, including pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery., (© 2017 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Objective: To determine the efficacy of bariatric surgery in the public sector for the treatment of complicated obesity., Design, Setting and Participants: A longitudinal observational study of obese participants with comorbid conditions, aged 21-73 years, who underwent publicly funded bariatric surgery. Data were extracted from clinical databases (1 October 2009 to 1 September 2013) and recorded at seven time points. Participants are from an ongoing public obesity program., Main Outcome Measures: Postoperative weight loss and partial or full resolution of: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension (HTN), dyslipidaemia and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA)., Results: The 65 participants in the cohort lost a mean weight of 22.6 kg (SD, 9.5 kg) by 3 months, 34.2.kg (SD, 20.1 kg) by 12 months and 39.9 kg (SD, 31.4 kg) by 24 months (P < 0.001). Body mass index (BMI) decreased from a preoperative mean of 48.2 kg/m(2) (SD, 9.5 kg/m(2)) to 35.7 kg/m(2) (SD, 7.7 kg/m(2)) by 24 months (P < 0.001). Full resolution of comorbid conditions by 18 months (P < 0.001) was achieved by almost half of those with baseline T2DM, nearly two-thirds with HTN and three-quarters of those with OSA, with continued improvements beyond 24 months., Conclusions: Bariatric surgery performed in the public sector is efficacious in the treatment of obese patients with comorbid conditions. Our findings parallel similar studies suggesting that there is equal benefit in publicly funded and privately performed procedures. This study highlights that obese patients reliant on public health care maintain sufficient intrinsic motivation in the absence of payment and supposed value-driven incentive. Improved access to bariatric surgery in the public sector can justifiably reduce the health inequities for those most in need.

Objective: This study examined rates of suicide and hospitalization with psychiatric diagnoses after sleeve gastrectomy compared with gastric bypass and restrictive procedures (gastric banding/gastroplasty). Methods: This was a longitudinal retrospective cohort study comprising all patients who underwent primary bariatric surgery in New South Wales or Queensland, Australia, between July 2001 and December 2020. Hospital admission records, death registration, and cause of death records (if applicable) within these dates were extracted and linked. Primary outcome was death by suicide. Secondary outcomes were admissions with self‐harm; substance‐use disorder, schizophrenia, mood, anxiety, behavioral, and personality disorders; any of these; and psychiatric inpatient admission. Results: A total of 121,203 patients were included, with median follow‐up of 4.5 years per patient. There were 77 suicides, with no evidence of difference in rates by surgery type (rates [95% CI] per 100,000 person years: 9.6 [5.0–18.4] restrictive, 10.8 [8.4–13.9] sleeve gastrectomy, 20.4 [9.7–42.8] gastric bypass; p = 0.18). Rates of admission with self‐harm declined after restrictive and sleeve procedures. Admission with anxiety disorders, any psychiatric diagnosis, and as a psychiatric inpatient increased after sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass, but not restrictive procedures. Admissions with substance‐use disorder increased after all surgery types. Conclusions: Variable associations between bariatric surgeries and hospitalization with psychiatric diagnoses might indicate distinct vulnerabilities among patient cohorts or that differing anatomical and/or functional changes may contribute to effects on mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Referral for both lifestyle and surgical interventions are recommended as part of the clinical management of obesity in general practice. However, current practice falls short of this. This qualitative study aimed to describe the factors influencing general practitioners' (GPs) referral intentions for their obese patients. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 GPs from four geographically different areas in New South Wales, Australia about the management of their obese patients. A qualitative analysis was applied using inductive thematic analysis. Results: The predominant factors influencing GPs' referral were their own attitudes and experience, and their patient's motivation. Lifestyle intervention Referrals were usually initiated by GPs and influenced by their patients and the local health system. Referrals to conduct bariatric surgery were frequently initiated by the patient and influenced by GPs' limited previous experience, patients' expectations and ability to pay, as well as professional and legal issues. There was no strong link between referral and the remoteness of areas or the availability of surgical referral services. Conclusion: There were differences between GPs reported referral behaviour for lifestyle and surgical interventions. GPs' attitudes to referral were often formed by their limited case experience rather than by a review of more systematic evidence, especially for surgical interventions. These patterns may be improved by educating and better communicating with GPs about the outcomes for their patients when they are referred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]