Search

Background: "Textbook outcome" (TO) is a novel composite quality measure that encompasses multiple postoperative endpoints, representing the ideal "textbook" hospitalization for complex surgical procedures. We defined TO for kidney transplantation using a cohort from a high-volume institution. Methods: Adult patients who underwent isolated kidney transplantation at our institution between 2016 and 2019 were included. TO was defined by clinician consensus at our institution to include freedom from intraoperative complication, postoperative reintervention, 30-day intensive care unit or hospital readmission, length of stay > 75th percentile of kidney transplant patients, 90-day mortality, 30-day acute rejection, delayed graft function, and discharge with a Foley catheter. Recipient, operative, financial characteristics, and post-transplant patient, graft, and rejection-free survival were compared between patients who achieved and failed to achieve TO. Results: A total of 557 kidney transplant patients were included. Of those, 245 (44%) achieved TO. The most common reasons for TO failure were delayed graft function (N = 157, 50%) and hospital readmission within 30 days (N = 155, 50%); the least common was mortality within 90 days (N = 6, 2%). Patient, graft, and rejection-free survival were significantly improved among patients who achieved TO. On average, patients who achieved TO incurred approximately $50,000 less in total inpatient charges compared to those who failed TO. Conclusions: TO in kidney transplantation was associated with favorable post-transplant outcomes and significant cost-savings. TO may offer transplant centers a detailed performance breakdown to identify aspects of perioperative care in need of process improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Textbook outcome (TO) is an emerging concept within multiple surgical domains, which represents a novel effort to define a standardized, composite quality benchmark based on multiple postoperative endpoints that represent the ideal "textbook" hospitalization. We sought to define TO for liver transplantation (LT) using a cohort from a high procedural volume center. Methods: Patients who underwent LT at our institution between 2014 and 2017 were eligible for the study. The definition of TO was determined by clinician consensus at our institution to include freedom from: mortality within 90 days, primary allograft non-function, early allograft dysfunction (EAD), rejection within 30 days, readmission with 30 days, readmission to the ICU during index hospitalization, hospital length of stay > 75th percentile of all liver transplant patients, red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirement greater than the 75th percentile for all liver transplant patients, Clavien–Dindo Grade III complication (re-intervention), and major intraoperative complication. Results: Two hundred and thirty-one liver transplants with complete data were performed within the study period. Of those, 71 (31%) achieved a TO. Overall, the most likely event to lead to failure to achieve TO was readmission within 30 days (n = 57, 37%) or reoperation (n = 49, 32%). Overall and rejection-free survival did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Interestingly, patients who achieved TO incurred approximately $60,000 less in total charges than those who did not. When we limit this to charges specifically attributable to the transplant episode, the difference was approximately $50,000 and remained significantly less for those that achieved TO. Conclusions: Here, we present the first definition of TO in LT. Though not associated with long-term outcomes, TO in LT is associated with a significantly lower charges and costs of the initial hospitalization. A multi-institutional study to validate this definition of TO is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wrong-site surgery (WSS) is a rare event that occurs to hundreds of patients each year. Despite national implementation of the Universal Protocol over the past decade, development of effective interventions remains a challenge. We performed a systematic review of the literature reporting root causes of WSS and used the results to perform a fault tree analysis to assess the reliability of the system in preventing WSS and identifying high-priority targets for interventions aimed at reducing WSS. Process components where a single error could result in WSS were labeled with OR gates; process aspects reinforced by verification were labeled with AND gates. The overall redundancy of the system was evaluated based on prevalence of AND gates and OR gates. In total, 37 studies described risk factors for WSS. The fault tree contains 35 faults, most of which fall into five main categories. Despite the Universal Protocol mandating patient verification, surgical site signing, and a brief time-out, a large proportion of the process relies on human transcription and verification. Fault tree analysis provides a standardized perspective of errors or faults within the system of surgical scheduling and site confirmation. It can be adapted by institutions or specialties to lead to more targeted interventions to increase redundancy and reliability within the preoperative process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is a complex surgery associated with high rates of postoperative complications. While national outcomes data are available, national rates of most complications are unknown. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the literature reporting rates of postoperative complications between 2002 and 2012 was performed. A cohort of 29,227 deceased donor liver transplant recipients from 74 studies was used to calculate pooled incidences for 17 major postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive review of postoperative complications after liver transplantation and can serve as a guide for transplant and nontransplant clinicians. Efforts to collect national data on complications, such as through the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, would improve the ability to provide patients with informed consent, serve as a tool for individual center performance monitoring, and provide a central source against which to measure interventions aimed at improving patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]