Quantitative weighting of postoperative complications based on the accordion severity grading system: demonstration of potential impact using the american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND: To quantify severity of postoperative complications based on the Accordion Severity Grading System, determine the ability of severity grading to enhance National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data, and develop an aggregate measure of severity of complications (the postoperative morbidity index). STUDY DESIGN: Forty-three surgical experts rated case vignettes containing postoperative complications on a severity scale. Vignettes were based on the Accordion Severity Grading System derived from the Toronto Severity Grading System. The system was adjusted using the expert severity scale results and applied to 1 year of NSQIP outcomes (1,857 patients, 704 complications) at a large tertiary care center. RESULTS: Experts initially distinguished the 6 grades of severity in a highly significant manner (t-test probabilities all < 0.005), with 1 exception. They rated reoperation and single-system organ failure without reoperation as similar, rather than distinct, in severity. The Accordion System was adjusted to reflect this. Distinction of grades thereafter was highly significant (t-test probabilities all < 0.005). Application to American College of Surgeons NSQIP data provided important novel insights. For example, complications in 6 American College of Surgeons NSQIP categories spanned 4 or more severity grades. Severity-weighted outcomes revealed that quantitatively the greatest burden of outcomes was due to wound infection, shock, and return to the operating room, which is not revealed by unweighted outcomes. Based on this information, an aggregate measure of severity of complications-the postoperative morbidity index-was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative severity weighting of complications is feasible. Adjustment of American College of Surgeons NSQIP outcomes using this quantitative severity grading system provides uniquely informative representations of relative burdens of morbidities.

The impact of surgeon specialization on patient mortality: examination of a continuous Herfindahl-Hirschman index.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of surgeon specialization on patient outcomes, controlling for volume. BACKGROUND: There is great interest in the degree to which surgical specialization affects outcomes, particularly considering drives to measure and reward quality in healthcare. Although surgical specialization has been previously analyzed with respect to outcomes, most studies have treated it as a dichotomous variable based on academic credentials. We treat it here as a continuous variable defined quantitatively by procedural diversity. METHODS: We used 2002 to 2005 patient data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program for the Department of Surgery, Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri. To quantitate procedural specialization, Herfindahl-Hirschman indices for surgeons were calculated using billing codes. These indices were calculated according to 3 different levels of procedural aggregation. Using conditional logit models, we examined the relationship between these indices and 30-day postoperative mortality rates. RESULTS: Surgeon specialization was inversely related to mortality rates after adjusting for case volume when indices were calculated using medium procedural aggregation (odds ratio for mortality = 0.580 per 0.1 unit Herfindahl increase; P = 0.025) or low aggregation (odds ratio for mortality = 0.510 per 0.1 unit Herfindahl increase; P = 0.015). No relationship was observed at the high level of aggregation. CONCLUSIONS: The procedural concentration component of surgical specialization is correlated with improved mortality rates independently of case volume. However, how broadly or narrowly "specialization" is defined has an impact on this relationship.

Comparison of mortality risk adjustment using a clinical data algorithm (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) and an administrative data algorithm (Solucient) at the case level within a single institution.

BACKGROUND: There is great interest in efficiently evaluating health care quality, but there is controversy over the use of administrative versus clinical data methods. We sought to compare actual mortality with risk-adjusted expected mortality in a sample population calculated by two different methods; one based on preexisting administrative records and one based on chart reviews. STUDY DESIGN: We examined a sample of patients (n = 1,234) undergoing surgical procedures at an academic teaching hospital during 1 year. The first risk-adjustment method was that used by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, which is based on dedicated medical record review. The second method was that used by Solucient, LLC, which is based on preexisting administrative records. RESULTS: The ratio of observed to expected mortality for this population set was higher using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program algorithm (1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.5) than using the Solucient algorithm (0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2) but neither estimate was notably different from 1.0. Similarly, when observed to expected mortality ratios were calculated separately for each quartile of mortality, there were no marked differences within quartiles, although minor differences with potential importance were noted. Fit was comparable by age categories, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists' categories. A number of actual deaths had higher predicted mortality scores using the Solucient algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adjusted mortality estimates were comparable using administrative or clinical data. Minor performance differences might still have implications. Because of the potential lower cost of using administrative data, this type of algorithm can be an efficient alternative and should continue to be investigated.

Thyroid and parathyroid operations in veterans affairs and selected university medical centers: results of the patient safety in surgery study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in surgical outcomes. The Patient Safety in Surgery (PSS) Study database was examined about thyroid and parathyroid procedures to determine risk factors for adverse outcomes and outcomes rates. Relative outcomes performance for the Veterans Affairs (VA) and private-sector populations was compared after risk adjustment. STUDY DESIGN: Preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed for 7,082 patients: 2,814 VA patients and 4,268 private sector patients. Prevalence of risk or process factors was described. Occurrence rates and unadjusted odds ratios (OR) for adverse outcomes were calculated. Stepwise multiple logistic regressions were performed to model the impact of various factors on outcomes and to calculate the adjusted OR for any adverse event for the VA population compared with the private sector. RESULTS: Overall mortality rate was 0.35% and 0.60% in the VA and 0.19% in the private sector. Overall rate of any adverse outcomes was 2.90% and 4.48% in the VA and 1.97% in the private sector. Adjusted OR for thyroid versus parathyroid operation was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.67-1.31). Adjusted OR for operation in the VA versus private sector was 1.25 (95% CI, 0.87-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Overall rates of mortality and any morbidity were low and consistent with previous reports. Based on adjusted OR, there was no significant difference in outcomes for thyroid versus parathyroid operation. Similarly, there was no apparent significant difference in surgical outcomes between the VA and private-sector groups after risk adjustment.