Arjun Verma BS , Saad Mallick MD , Justin J. Kim BA , Joseph Hadaya MD, PhD , Yas Sanaiha MD , Sara Sakowitz MS, MPH , Peyman Benharash MD, MS
{"title":"The impact of complication-sensitive risk models on hospital benchmarking for failure to rescue","authors":"Arjun Verma BS , Saad Mallick MD , Justin J. Kim BA , Joseph Hadaya MD, PhD , Yas Sanaiha MD , Sara Sakowitz MS, MPH , Peyman Benharash MD, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.surg.2025.109323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Failure to rescue has been increasingly used as a surgical quality metric, although implementation with complication-agnostic risk models may disproportionately penalize centers that care for high-risk patients. We used a nationally representative database to assess the impact of complication-sensitive risk models on hospital benchmarking for failure to rescue.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>All adults undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic/mitral valve replacement, or esophageal/pancreatic/large bowel resection were identified within the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Two hierarchical logistic regressions (model 1: complication-agnostic; model 2: complication-sensitive) were developed to evaluate risk-adjusted rates of failure to rescue at each center. Patient characteristics (demographics, comorbidities) were incorporated as fixed effects in both models. Model 2 also included adjustment for the occurrence and identity of each complication. Hospitals were subsequently grouped into quintiles of failure to rescue using each model.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Approximately 296,907 patients at 1,034 hospitals met inclusion criteria. Overall mortality, complication, and failure to rescue rates were 1.1%, 4.8%, and 17.8%, respectively. Centers in the highest quintile of failure to rescue for model 1 more frequently managed patients who developed cardiac arrest (0.9 vs 0.7%, <em>P</em> = .003) or acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (0.6 vs 0.4%, <em>P</em> = .017). In contrast, the rates of all complications except sepsis (2.7 vs 2.3%, <em>P</em> = .035) were comparable between centers in the top quintile and others, when using model 2. Overall, ∼30% of hospitals were reclassified into different quintiles with the complication-sensitive model.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study suggests that complication-agnostic models disproportionately penalize centers caring for patients who develop severe complications, which can be mitigated with complication-sensitive models.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":22152,"journal":{"name":"Surgery","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 109323"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039606025001758","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Failure to rescue has been increasingly used as a surgical quality metric, although implementation with complication-agnostic risk models may disproportionately penalize centers that care for high-risk patients. We used a nationally representative database to assess the impact of complication-sensitive risk models on hospital benchmarking for failure to rescue.
Methods
All adults undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic/mitral valve replacement, or esophageal/pancreatic/large bowel resection were identified within the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Two hierarchical logistic regressions (model 1: complication-agnostic; model 2: complication-sensitive) were developed to evaluate risk-adjusted rates of failure to rescue at each center. Patient characteristics (demographics, comorbidities) were incorporated as fixed effects in both models. Model 2 also included adjustment for the occurrence and identity of each complication. Hospitals were subsequently grouped into quintiles of failure to rescue using each model.
Results
Approximately 296,907 patients at 1,034 hospitals met inclusion criteria. Overall mortality, complication, and failure to rescue rates were 1.1%, 4.8%, and 17.8%, respectively. Centers in the highest quintile of failure to rescue for model 1 more frequently managed patients who developed cardiac arrest (0.9 vs 0.7%, P = .003) or acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (0.6 vs 0.4%, P = .017). In contrast, the rates of all complications except sepsis (2.7 vs 2.3%, P = .035) were comparable between centers in the top quintile and others, when using model 2. Overall, ∼30% of hospitals were reclassified into different quintiles with the complication-sensitive model.
Conclusion
This study suggests that complication-agnostic models disproportionately penalize centers caring for patients who develop severe complications, which can be mitigated with complication-sensitive models.
背景:抢救失败已越来越多地被用作外科手术质量的衡量标准,尽管采用并发症未知风险模型可能会不成比例地惩罚照顾高危患者的中心。我们使用一个具有全国代表性的数据库来评估并发症敏感风险模型对医院抢救失败基准的影响。方法:所有接受择期冠状动脉旁路移植术、主动脉瓣/二尖瓣置换术或食管/胰腺/大肠切除术的成年人都在2019年全国再入院数据库中被确定。两个层次逻辑回归(模型1:并发症不可知;模型2:并发症敏感)用于评估每个中心的风险调整抢救失败率。在两个模型中,患者特征(人口统计学、合并症)被纳入固定效应。模型2还包括对每种并发症的发生和身份的调整。随后,使用每种模型将医院分为抢救失败的五分之一。结果1034家医院约296907例患者符合纳入标准。总死亡率、并发症和抢救失败率分别为1.1%、4.8%和17.8%。模型1抢救失败的最高五分位数中心更频繁地管理发生心脏骤停(0.9 vs 0.7%, P = 0.003)或需要透析的急性肾损伤(0.6 vs 0.4%, P = 0.017)的患者。相比之下,当使用模型2时,除败血症外的所有并发症的发生率(2.7 vs 2.3%, P = 0.035)在前五分之一的中心和其他中心之间具有可比性。总体而言,约30%的医院根据并发症敏感模型被重新分类为不同的五分位数。结论该研究表明,并发症不可知模型不成比例地惩罚了照顾出现严重并发症患者的中心,而并发症敏感模型可以减轻这种情况。
期刊介绍:
For 66 years, Surgery has published practical, authoritative information about procedures, clinical advances, and major trends shaping general surgery. Each issue features original scientific contributions and clinical reports. Peer-reviewed articles cover topics in oncology, trauma, gastrointestinal, vascular, and transplantation surgery. The journal also publishes papers from the meetings of its sponsoring societies, the Society of University Surgeons, the Central Surgical Association, and the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons.