Perioperative hyperglycemia and risk of adverse events among patients with and without diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between diabetes status, perioperative hyperglycemia, and adverse events in a statewide surgical cohort. BACKGROUND: Perioperative hyperglycemia may increase the risk of adverse events more significantly in patients without diabetes (NDM) than in those with diabetes (DM). METHODS: Using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, a cohort study (2010-2012) evaluated diabetes status, perioperative hyperglycemia, and composite adverse events in abdominal, vascular, and spine surgery at 53 hospitals in Washington State. RESULTS: Among 40,836 patients (mean age, 54 years; 53.6% women), 19% had diabetes; 47% underwent a perioperative blood glucose (BG) test, and of those, 18% had BG ≥180 mg/dL. DM patients had a higher rate of adverse events (12% vs 9%, P < 0.001) than NDM patients. After adjustment, among NDM patients, those with hyperglycemia had an increased risk of adverse events compared with those with normal BG. Among NDM patients, there was a dose-response relationship between the level of BG and composite adverse events [odds ratio (OR), 1.3 for BG 125-180 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-1.5); OR, 1.6 for BG ≥180 (95% CI, 1.3-2.1)]. Conversely, hyperglycemic DM patients did not have an increased risk of adverse events, including those with a BG 180 or more (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0). NDM patients were less likely to receive insulin at each BG level. CONCLUSIONS: For NDM patients, but not DM patients, the risk of adverse events was linked to hyperglycemia. Underlying this paradoxical effect may be the underuse of insulin, but also that hyperglycemia indicates higher levels of stress in NDM patients than in DM patients.

Addressing the appropriateness of elective colon resection for diverticulitis: a report from the SCOAP CERTAIN collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reported indications for elective colon resection for diverticulitis and concordance with professional guidelines. BACKGROUND: Despite modern professional guidelines recommending delay in elective colon resection beyond 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, the incidence of elective colectomy has increased dramatically in the last 2 decades. Whether surgeons have changed their threshold for recommending a surgical intervention is unknown. In 2010, Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program initiated a benchmarking and education initiative related to the indications for colon resection. METHODS: Prospective cohort study evaluating indications from chronic complications (fistula, stricture, bleeding) or the number of previously treated diverticulitis episodes for patients undergoing elective colectomy at 1 of 49 participating hospitals (2010-2013). RESULTS: Among 2724 patients (58.7 ± 13 years; 46% men), 29.4% had a chronic complication indication (15.6% fistula, 7.4% stricture, 3.0% bleeding, 5.8% other). For the 70.5% with an episode-based indication, 39.4% had 2 or fewer episodes, 56.5% had 3 to 10 episodes, and 4.1% had more than 10 episodes. Thirty-one percent of patients failed to meet indications for either a chronic complication or 3 or more episodes. Over the 4 years, the proportion of patients with an indication of 3 or more episodes increased from 36.6% to 52.7% (P < 0.001) whereas the proportion of those who failed to meet either clinical or episode-based indications decreased from 38.4% to 26.4% (P < 0.001). The annual rate of emergency resections did not increase significantly, varying from 5.6 to 5.9 per year (P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to a guideline based on 3 or more episodes for elective colectomy increased concurrently with a benchmarking and peer-to-peer messaging initiative. Improving adherence to professional guidelines related to appropriate care is critical and can be facilitated by quality improvement collaboratives.

Time to appendectomy and risk of perforation in acute appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: In the traditional model of acute appendicitis, time is the major driver of disease progression; luminal obstruction leads inexorably to perforation without timely intervention. This perceived association has long guided clinical behavior related to the timing of appendectomy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is an association between time and perforation after patients present to the hospital. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP), we evaluated patterns of perforation among patients (≥18 years) who underwent appendectomy from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Patients were treated at 52 diverse hospitals including urban tertiary centers, a university hospital, small community and rural hospitals, and hospitals within multi-institutional organizations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome of interest was perforation as diagnosed on final pathology reports. The main predictor of interest was elapsed time as measured between presentation to the hospital and operating room (OR) start time. The relationship between in-hospital time and perforation was adjusted for potential confounding using multivariate logistic regression. Additional predictors of interest included sex, age, number of comorbid conditions, race and/or ethnicity, insurance status, and hospital characteristics such as community type and appendectomy volume. RESULTS: A total of 9048 adults underwent appendectomy (15.8% perforated). Mean time from presentation to OR was the same (8.6 hours) for patients with perforated and nonperforated appendicitis. In multivariate analysis, increasing time to OR was not a predictor of perforation, either as a continuous variable (odds ratio = 1.0 [95% CI, 0.99-1.01]) or when considered as a categorical variable (patients ordered by elapsed time and divided into deciles). Factors associated with perforation were male sex, increasing age, 3 or more comorbid conditions, and lack of insurance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was no association between perforation and in-hospital time prior to surgery among adults treated with appendectomy. These findings may reflect selection of those at higher risk of perforation for earlier intervention or the effect of antibiotics begun at diagnosis but they are also consistent with the hypothesis that perforation is most often a prehospital occurrence and/or not strictly a time-dependent phenomenon. These findings may also guide decisions regarding personnel and resource allocation when considering timing of nonelective appendectomy.

A model for incorporating patient and stakeholder voices in a learning health care network: Washington State's Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the inaugural comparative effectiveness research (CER) cohort study of Washington State's Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network (CERTAIN), which compares invasive with noninvasive treatments for peripheral artery disease, and to focus on the patient centeredness of this cohort study by describing it within the context of a newly published conceptual framework for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The peripheral artery disease study was selected because of clinician-identified uncertainty in treatment selection and differences in desired outcomes between patients and clinicians. Patient centeredness is achieved through the "Patient Voices Project," a CERTAIN initiative through which patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are administered for research and clinical purposes, and a study-specific patient advisory group where patients are meaningfully engaged throughout the life cycle of the study. A clinician-led research advisory panel follows in parallel. RESULTS: Primary outcomes are PRO instruments that measure function, health-related quality of life, and symptoms, the latter developed with input from the patients. Input from the patient advisory group led to revised retention procedures, which now focus on short-term (3-6 months) follow-up. The research advisory panel is piloting a point-of-care, patient assessment checklist, thereby returning study results to practice. The cohort study is aligned with the tenets of one of the new conceptual frameworks for conducting PCOR. CONCLUSION: The CERTAIN's inaugural cohort study may serve as a useful model for conducting PCOR and creating a learning health care network.

Creating a learning healthcare system in surgery: Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) at 5 years.

There are increasing efforts towards improving the quality and safety of surgical care while decreasing the costs. In Washington state, there has been a regional and unique approach to surgical quality improvement. The development of the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) was first described 5 years ago. SCOAP is a peer-to-peer collaborative that engages surgeons to determine the many process of care metrics that go into a "perfect" operation, track on risk adjusted outcomes that are specific to a given operation, and create interventions to correct under performance in both the use of these process measures and outcomes. SCOAP is a thematic departure from report card oriented QI. SCOAP builds off the collaboration and trust of the surgical community and strives for quality improvement by having peers change behaviors of one another. We provide, here, the progress of the SCOAP initiative and highlight its achievements and challenges.