ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We designed an assessment and education program which was delivered to patients prior to first outpatient appointment for bariatric surgery. We hypothesised that this program would streamline care and would lead to improved weight loss following bariatric surgery. METHODS: The program incorporates a structured general practitioners (GP) review, a patient information evening and an on-line learning package. It was introduced in September 2012. Patient flow through the program was recorded. Outcomes of the new program were compared with contemporaneously treated patients who did not undertake the pre-hospital program. RESULTS: All 636 patients on the waiting list for first appointment at the Alfred Health bariatric surgery clinic were invited to participate. There were 400 patients ultimately removed from the waiting list for first appointment. Of the remaining 236 patients, 229 consented to participate in the new program. The mean BMI was 47.8 ± 9.2. The fail to attend first appointment rate dropped from 12 to 2.1 %. At 12 months post-bariatric surgery, patients who undertook the new program (n = 82) had a mean excess weight loss (EWL) of 41.1 ± 20.3 % where as those treated on the standard pathway (n = 61) had a mean EWL 32 ± 18.0 % (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a pre-hospital education program has led to an improvement in attendance rates and early weight loss post-bariatric surgery.
Subject(s)
Obesity, Morbid/surgery , Patient Education as Topic , Adult , Bariatric Surgery , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Preoperative Period , Quality Improvement , Weight LossABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of redesigning and streamlining perioperative services. DESIGN: A before-and-after evaluation, with retrospective analysis of de-identified administrative data. SETTING: A major tertiary hospital, Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective surgery, February 2005 - February 2010. INTERVENTION: Implementing a process redesign to streamline clinical pathways for elective surgery, with a focus on the patient journey from referral to discharge, and establishing a separate, dedicated elective surgery facility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of patients waiting beyond national recommended waiting times for elective surgery; hospital-initiated postponement (HIP) rates for elective surgery; and lengths of stay (LOS), both combined and for specific diagnostic-related groups. RESULTS: The clinical process redesign resulted in a sustained downward trend in the number of elective surgery patients waiting longer than national recommended maximum waiting times. HIP rates were reduced to 1% in the dedicated elective surgery facility, and there was a significant reduction in the combined LOS, as well as the LOS for the most common surgical procedures (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical process redesign of perioperative services and collocation of a separate elective surgery centre improved (i) timeliness of care for elective surgery patients and (ii) key indicators (LOS and HIP rates) for planned elective admissions.
