Institution of Monthly Anesthesia Quality Reports Does Not Reduce Postoperative Complications despite Improved Metric Compliance.

While quality programs have been shown to improve provider compliance, few have demonstrated conclusive improvements in patient outcomes. We hypothesized that there would be increased metric compliance and decreased postoperative complications after initiation of an anesthesiology quality improvement program at our institution. We performed a retrospective study of all adult inpatients having anesthesia for a twelve-month period that spanned six months before and after program implementation. The primary outcome was the rate of complications in the post-implementation period. Secondary outcomes included the change in proportion of complications and compliance with quality metrics. We studied a total of 9620 adult inpatient cases, subdivided into pre- and post-implementation groups (4832 vs 4788.) After multivariate model adjustment, the rate of any complication (our primary outcome) was not significantly changed (32% to 31%; adjusted P = 0.410.) Of the individual complications, only wound infection (2.0% to 1.5%; adjusted P = 0.020) showed a statistically significant decrease. Statistically and clinically significant increases in compliance were seen for the BP-02 Avoiding Monitoring Gaps metric (81% to 93%, P < 0.001), both neuromuscular blockade metrics (NMB-01 76% to 91%, P < 0.001; NMB-02 95% to 97%, P = 0.006), both tidal volume metrics (PUL-01 84% to 93%, P < 0.001; PUL-02 30% to 45%, P < 0.001), and the TEMP-02 Core Temperature Measurement metric (88% to 94%, P < 0.001). Implementation of a comprehensive quality feedback program improved metric compliance but was not associated with a change in postoperative complications.

Improved Compliance With Anesthesia Quality Measures After Implementation of Automated Monthly Feedback.

PURPOSE: Minimization of postoperative complications is important in patients with cancer. We wished to improve compliance with anesthesiology quality measures through staff education reinforced with automated monthly feedback. METHODS: The anesthesiology department implemented a program to capture and report quality metrics. After staff education, monthly e-mail reports were sent to each anesthesiology physician and nurse anesthetist to detail individual compliance rates for a set of quality measures. For each measure, the proportion of patient cases that passed the measure before and after implementation of the program was compared using a two-sample proportion test. RESULTS: After exclusions, we analyzed 15 of 23 quality measures. Of the 15 measures, 11 were process measures, and four were outcome measures. Of the 11 process measures, seven demonstrated statistically significant improvements (P < .01). The most improved measure was TEMP-02 (core temperature measurement), which increased from 69.6% to 85.7% (16.1% difference; P < .001). Also improved were PUL-02 (low tidal volume, less than 8 mL/kg ideal body weight; 15.4% difference; P < .001) and NMB-01 (train of four taken; 12.2% difference; P < .001). The outcome measure TEMP-03 (perioperative temperature management) had a statistically significant increase of a small magnitude (0.2% difference; P < .001). No other outcome measures showed statistically significant improvement. CONCLUSION: After implementation of a comprehensive quality improvement program, our group observed significant improvements in anesthesia quality measure compliance for several process measures. Future work is needed to determine if this initial success can be preserved and associated with improved outcomes.