Identifying High and Low Performing Emergency General Surgery Hospitals Using Direct Standardization

Drew W Goldberg, Rachel R Kelz, Luke Keele, Chris Wirtalla, Solomiya Syvyk
{"title":"Identifying High and Low Performing Emergency General Surgery Hospitals Using Direct Standardization","authors":"Drew W Goldberg, Rachel R Kelz, Luke Keele, Chris Wirtalla, Solomiya Syvyk","doi":"10.1101/2024.02.23.24303292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance: Variation in outcomes for emergency general surgery conditions has been shown at the hospital level. Few have examined difference across hospitals for older adults who often present with the greatest risk. To date, no one has examined differences in the outcome for those undergoing operative and nonoperative treatment. Objective: Identify high and low performing emergency general surgery (EGS) hospitals with risk-standardization to determine clinical performance differences as well as correlation between patients treated operatively and non-operatively. Design: A retrospective cohort study with 30-day outcomes. Setting: Nationwide study of acute care hospitals. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries > 65.5 years old hospitalized for an emergency general surgery condition admitted from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Exposure: Unique hospital identification. Main outcome: A composite metric of adverse event including 30- day mortality, prolonged length of stay, and readmission. Results: There were 536,284 total patients with a mean age of 74.4 +/- 12.2 years, 55% female, 84% white with average claims-based frailty index of 0.16 +/- 0.06 and mean comorbidity count of 3.57 +/- 2.46. Amongst the 1866 hospitals identified, there were 3 best performing and 11 worst performing hospitals. There were weak correlations between operative and non-operative for mortality (0.10), adverse events rates (0.21), prolonged length of stay (0.32), and readmissions (0.18) at the hospital level (all p<0.001). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant variation exists in EGS hospital performance with best ranked hospitals out-performing worst ranked hospitals on adverse event, mortality, prolonged length of stay and readmission. There is little association between patient outcomes for those treated with operative and non-operative care.","PeriodicalId":501051,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Surgery","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.23.24303292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Variation in outcomes for emergency general surgery conditions has been shown at the hospital level. Few have examined difference across hospitals for older adults who often present with the greatest risk. To date, no one has examined differences in the outcome for those undergoing operative and nonoperative treatment. Objective: Identify high and low performing emergency general surgery (EGS) hospitals with risk-standardization to determine clinical performance differences as well as correlation between patients treated operatively and non-operatively. Design: A retrospective cohort study with 30-day outcomes. Setting: Nationwide study of acute care hospitals. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries > 65.5 years old hospitalized for an emergency general surgery condition admitted from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Exposure: Unique hospital identification. Main outcome: A composite metric of adverse event including 30- day mortality, prolonged length of stay, and readmission. Results: There were 536,284 total patients with a mean age of 74.4 +/- 12.2 years, 55% female, 84% white with average claims-based frailty index of 0.16 +/- 0.06 and mean comorbidity count of 3.57 +/- 2.46. Amongst the 1866 hospitals identified, there were 3 best performing and 11 worst performing hospitals. There were weak correlations between operative and non-operative for mortality (0.10), adverse events rates (0.21), prolonged length of stay (0.32), and readmissions (0.18) at the hospital level (all p<0.001). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant variation exists in EGS hospital performance with best ranked hospitals out-performing worst ranked hospitals on adverse event, mortality, prolonged length of stay and readmission. There is little association between patient outcomes for those treated with operative and non-operative care.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用直接标准化识别表现优异和表现不佳的急诊普通外科医院
重要性:急诊普外科疾病的治疗结果在医院层面存在差异。但很少有人研究过老年人在不同医院的治疗效果差异,因为老年人的风险往往最大。迄今为止,还没有人研究过接受手术治疗和非手术治疗的患者的预后差异。目标:通过风险标准化确定急诊普外科 (EGS) 的高绩效医院和低绩效医院,以确定临床绩效差异以及接受手术治疗和非手术治疗的患者之间的相关性。设计:回顾性队列研究,30 天结果。研究环境:全国范围内的急症护理医院研究。参与者:2015年7月1日至2018年6月30日期间因急诊普通外科疾病住院的65.5岁医疗保险受益人>。暴露:医院唯一标识。主要结果:不良事件的综合指标,包括 30 天死亡率、住院时间延长和再入院。结果:患者总数为 536284 人,平均年龄为 74.4 +/- 12.2 岁,55% 为女性,84% 为白人,平均虚弱指数为 0.16 +/- 0.06,平均合并症为 3.57 +/- 2.46。在已确定的 1866 家医院中,有 3 家表现最佳,11 家表现最差。在医院层面,手术和非手术死亡率(0.10)、不良事件发生率(0.21)、住院时间延长率(0.32)和再入院率(0.18)之间存在微弱的相关性(均为 p<0.001)。结论与意义:EGS 医院的表现存在显著差异,在不良事件、死亡率、住院时间延长和再入院率方面,排名最好的医院优于排名最差的医院。接受手术治疗和非手术治疗的患者的预后之间几乎没有关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The VIPR-1 trial (Visualizing Ischemia in the Pancreatic Remnant) - Assessing the role of intraoperative indocyanine green perfusion of the transected pancreas in predicting postoperative pancreatic leaks: protocol for a prospective phase II trial. Insulin-dependence as a Predictor of Shortened Cancer-specific Survival in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Multi-Institutional Study from the United States Neuroendocrine Study Group Chyme Reinfusion Practices in the Neonatal Population Traumatic Amputations - A Nationwide Epidemiological Analysis of a developing country over 16 years Development and Validation of Collaborative Robot-assisted Cutting Method for Iliac Crest Flap Raising: Randomized Crossover Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1