RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is an approach that focuses on delivering the highest possible value for patients while driving cost efficiency in health services. It emphasizes improving patient outcomes and experiences while optimizing the use of resources, shifting the healthcare system's focus from the volume of services to the value delivered. Our study assessed the effectiveness of implementing a VBHC-principled, tailored preoperative evaluation in enhancing patient care and outcomes, as well as reducing healthcare costs. METHODS: We employed a quality improvement, before-and-after approach to assessing the effects of implementing VBHC strategies on the restructuring of the preoperative evaluation clinics at Humanitas Research Hospital. The intervention introduced a VBHC-tailored risk matrix during the postintervention phase (year 2021), and the results were compared with those of the preintervention phase (2019). The primary study outcome was the difference in the number of preoperative tests and visits at baseline and after the VBHC approach. Secondary outcomes were patient outcomes and costs. RESULTS: A total of 9722 patients were included: 5242 during 2019 (baseline) and 4,480 during 2021 (VBHC approach). The median age of the population was 63 (IQR 51-72), 23% of patients were classified as ASA 3 and 4, and 26.8% (2,955 cases) were day surgery cases. We found a considerable decrease in the number of preoperative tests ordered for each patient [6.2 (2.5) vs 5.3 (2.6) tests, p < 0.001]. The number of preoperative chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, and cardiac exams decreased significantly with VBHC. The length of the preoperative evaluation was significantly shorter with VBHC [373 (136) vs 290 (157) min, p < 0.001]. Cost analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in costs, while there was no difference in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and cost-effectiveness of a tailored approach for preoperative evaluation. The implementation of VBHC enhanced value, as evidenced by decreased patient time in preoperative evaluation and by a reduction in unnecessary preoperative tests.
RESUMO
ObjectiveThis study compared all patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer in 20 hospitals of Northern Italy in 2019 versus 2020, in order to evaluate whether COVID-19-related delays in the execution of colorectal cancer screening resulted in more advanced cancers at diagnosis and worse clinical outcomes. DesignA retrospective multicentric cohort analysis of patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer in March-December 2019 (2019) versus March-December 2020 (2020). The independent predictors of disease stage (oncologic stage, associated symptoms, clinical T4 stage, metastasis) and postoperative outcome (surgical complications, palliative surgery, 30-day death) were evaluated using logistic regression. ResultsThe sample consisted of 1755 patients operated in 2019, and 1481 in 2020 (both mean ages 69.6 years). The proportions of cancers with symptoms, clinical T4 stage, liver and lung metastases in 2019 and 2020 were, respectively: 80.8% vs 84.5%; 6.2% vs 8.7%; 10.2% vs 10.3%; and 3.0% vs 4.4%. The proportions of surgical complications, palliative surgery, and death in 2019 and 2020 were, respectively: 34.4%vs 31.9%; 5.0% vs 7.5%; and 1.7% vs 2.4%. At multivariate analysis, as compared with 2019, cancers in 2020 were significantly more likely to be symptomatic (Odds Ratio - OR: 1.36, 95% Confidence Interval - CI: 1.09-1.69), in clinical T4 stage (OR: 1.38; 1.03-1.85), with multiple liver metastases (OR: 2.21; 1.24-3.94), but less likely to cause surgical complications (OR: 0.79; 0.68-0.93). ConclusionsColorectal cancer patients who had surgery between March and December 2020 had an increased risk of more advanced disease in terms of associated symptoms, cancer location, clinical T4 stage, and number of liver metastases. SHORT SUMMARY BOX What is already known about this subject?A specific search regarding the correlation between colorectal cancer oncologic outcomes and COVID-19 showed a few modeling studies which reported the predictions of the potential impact of the diagnostic delays (due to the reduction of the screening programs) on the survival of patients affected by colorectal cancer. However, no study reported any real-life evidence regarding the correlation between the COVID-19 outbreak and the deteriorations of the oncologic outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer. What are the new findings?The present study showed that patients who had surgery for colorectal cancer between March and December 2020 had an increased risk of more advanced disease in terms of associated symptoms, cancer location, clinical T4 stage, and number of liver metastases, than patients who had surgery between March and December 2019. How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future?The present study confirmed that the backlogs of the screening programs have had, and probably will have, detrimental effects on the oncologic outcomes of patients affected by colorectal cancer. Increased resources should be placed in order to reactivate and enhance the screening programs, and to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer patients to be diagnosed with advanced cancer in the next future.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Postoperative endoscopic recurrence (PER) occurs in nearly 80% of patients 1 year after ileocecal resection in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Biological agents were more effective in reducing the rates of PER in comparison with conventional therapy, in prospective trials. The aim of this study was to compare the PER rates of biological versus conventional therapy after ileocecal resections in patients with CD in real-world practice. METHODS: The MULTIPER (Multicenter International Postoperative Endoscopic Recurrence) database is a retrospective analysis of PER rates in CD patients after ileocecal resection, from 7 referral centers in 3 different countries. All consecutive patients who underwent ileocecal resections between 2008 and 2012 and in whom colonoscopies had been performed up to 12 months after surgery, were included. Recurrence was defined as Rutgeerts' score > or =i2. The patients were allocated to either biological or conventional therapy after surgery, and PER rates were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Initially, 231 patients were evaluated, and 63 were excluded. Of the 168 patients in the database, 96 received anti-tumor necrosis factor agents and 72 were treated with conventional therapy after resection. The groups were comparable regarding age, gender, and perianal disease. There was longer disease duration, more previous resections, and more open surgical procedures in patients on biologicals postoperatively. PER was identified in 25/96 (26%) patients on biological therapy and in 24/72 (33.3%) patients on conventional therapy (P=0.310). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective observational analysis from an international database, no difference was observed between biological and conventional therapy in preventing PER after ileocecal resections in CD patients.
