Automating excellence: A breakthrough in emergency general surgery quality benchmarking.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-06 DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000004532
Louis A Perkins, Zongyang Mou, Jessica Masch, Brandon Harris, Amy E Liepert, Todd W Costantini, Laura N Haines, Allison Berndtson, Laura Adams, Jay J Doucet, Jarrett E Santorelli
{"title":"Automating excellence: A breakthrough in emergency general surgery quality benchmarking.","authors":"Louis A Perkins, Zongyang Mou, Jessica Masch, Brandon Harris, Amy E Liepert, Todd W Costantini, Laura N Haines, Allison Berndtson, Laura Adams, Jay J Doucet, Jarrett E Santorelli","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given the high mortality and morbidity of emergency general surgery (EGS), designing and implementing effective quality assessment tools is imperative. Currently accepted EGS risk scores are limited by the need for manual extraction, which is time-intensive and costly. We developed an automated institutional electronic health record (EHR)-linked EGS registry that calculates a modified Emergency Surgery Score (mESS) and a modified Predictive OpTimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) score and demonstrated their use in benchmarking outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The EHR-linked EGS registry was queried for patients undergoing emergent laparotomies from 2018 to 2023. Data captured included demographics, admission and discharge data, diagnoses, procedures, vitals, and laboratories. The mESS and modified POTTER (mPOTTER) were calculated based off previously defined variables, with estimation of subjective variables using diagnosis codes and other abstracted treatment variables. This was validated against ESS and the POTTER risk calculators by chart review. Observed versus expected (O:E) 30-day mortality and complication ratios were generated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EGS registry captured 177 emergent laparotomies. There were 32 deaths (18%) and 79 complications (45%) within 30 days of surgery. For mortality, the mean difference between the mESS and ESS risk predictions for mortality was 3% (SD, 10%) with 86% of mESS predictions within 10% of ESS. The mean difference between the mPOTTER and POTTER was -2% (SD, 11%) with 76% of mPOTTER predictions within 10% of POTTER. Observed versus expected ratios by mESS and ESS were 1.45 and 1.86, respectively, and for mPOTTER and POTTER, they were 1.45 and 1.30, respectively. There was similarly good agreement between automated and manual risk scores in predicting complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study highlights the effective implementation of an institutional EHR-linked EGS registry equipped to generate automated quality metrics. This demonstrates potential in enhancing the standardization and assessment of EGS care while mitigating the need for extensive human resources investment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Prognostic and Epidemiologic Study; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004532","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Given the high mortality and morbidity of emergency general surgery (EGS), designing and implementing effective quality assessment tools is imperative. Currently accepted EGS risk scores are limited by the need for manual extraction, which is time-intensive and costly. We developed an automated institutional electronic health record (EHR)-linked EGS registry that calculates a modified Emergency Surgery Score (mESS) and a modified Predictive OpTimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) score and demonstrated their use in benchmarking outcomes.

Methods: The EHR-linked EGS registry was queried for patients undergoing emergent laparotomies from 2018 to 2023. Data captured included demographics, admission and discharge data, diagnoses, procedures, vitals, and laboratories. The mESS and modified POTTER (mPOTTER) were calculated based off previously defined variables, with estimation of subjective variables using diagnosis codes and other abstracted treatment variables. This was validated against ESS and the POTTER risk calculators by chart review. Observed versus expected (O:E) 30-day mortality and complication ratios were generated.

Results: The EGS registry captured 177 emergent laparotomies. There were 32 deaths (18%) and 79 complications (45%) within 30 days of surgery. For mortality, the mean difference between the mESS and ESS risk predictions for mortality was 3% (SD, 10%) with 86% of mESS predictions within 10% of ESS. The mean difference between the mPOTTER and POTTER was -2% (SD, 11%) with 76% of mPOTTER predictions within 10% of POTTER. Observed versus expected ratios by mESS and ESS were 1.45 and 1.86, respectively, and for mPOTTER and POTTER, they were 1.45 and 1.30, respectively. There was similarly good agreement between automated and manual risk scores in predicting complications.

Conclusion: Our study highlights the effective implementation of an institutional EHR-linked EGS registry equipped to generate automated quality metrics. This demonstrates potential in enhancing the standardization and assessment of EGS care while mitigating the need for extensive human resources investment.

Level of evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiologic Study; Level III.

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
自动化卓越:急诊普外科质量标杆的突破。
背景:鉴于急诊普外科(EGS)的高死亡率和发病率,设计和实施有效的质量评估工具势在必行。目前接受的EGS风险评分受限于需要人工提取,这是耗时且昂贵的。我们开发了一个自动机构电子健康记录(EHR)链接的EGS注册表,计算修改后的急诊手术评分(mESS)和修改后的急诊手术风险预测最优树(POTTER)评分,并展示了它们在基准结果中的应用。方法:查询2018年至2023年急诊剖腹手术患者的ehr相关EGS登记。获取的数据包括人口统计、入院和出院数据、诊断、程序、生命体征和实验室。mESS和修改后的POTTER (mPOTTER)是基于先前定义的变量计算的,主观变量的估计使用诊断代码和其他抽象的治疗变量。通过图表回顾,对ESS和POTTER风险计算器进行了验证。观察到的与预期的(0:E) 30天死亡率和并发症比率。结果:EGS登记记录了177例急诊剖腹手术。术后30天内有32例死亡(18%)和79例并发症(45%)。对于死亡率,mESS和ESS对死亡率风险预测的平均差异为3%(标准差,10%),其中86%的mESS预测在ESS的10%以内。mPOTTER和POTTER之间的平均差异为-2% (SD, 11%),其中76%的mPOTTER预测在POTTER的10%以内。mESS和ESS的观察值和预期值分别为1.45和1.86,mPOTTER和POTTER的观察值和预期值分别为1.45和1.30。在预测并发症方面,自动化和人工风险评分之间也有类似的良好一致性。结论:我们的研究强调了与ehr相关的EGS注册系统的有效实施,该系统能够生成自动化的质量指标。这表明在加强EGS护理的标准化和评估方面具有潜力,同时减少了对大量人力资源投资的需求。证据水平:预后和流行病学研究;第三层次。
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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
期刊最新文献
Closer to home: Managing more than three rib fractures at level IV trauma centers. How many minutes matter: Association between time saved with air medical transport and survival in trauma patients. Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: What You Need to Know. Not all call is created equally: The impact of culture and sex on burnout related to in-house call. Predictive value of platelet function assays in traumatic brain injury patients on antiplatelet therapy.
×
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