Choosing Wisely: Decreasing the incidence of perioperative blood transfusions in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and economic impact of a transfusion reduction initiative for patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective healthcare improvement study to align transfusion practices with the American Society of Hematology's Choosing Wisely® campaign. Baseline transfusion rates were determined retrospectively for all major gynecologic surgical cases from 3/1/14 to 6/30/14. Data for the post-intervention period from 5/15/15 to 5/16/16 were captured prospectively. The primary outcome was transfusion within 72 h of surgery. Secondary outcomes included perioperative morbidity, mortality, number of units ordered per transfusion episode and cost. RESULTS: We identified 1281 surgical cases, 334 in the baseline and 947 in the post-implementation cohort. The baseline cohort was noted to have a higher median estimated blood loss (100 v. 75 mL, P < 0.01). Otherwise, there were no differences in clinical or perioperative characteristics between the two cohorts. The perioperative transfusion rate decreased from 24% to 11% (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.45; P < 0.001). The perioperative laparotomy transfusion rate decreased from 48% to 23% (adjusted OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12, 0.37; P < 0.001). The number of occurrences in which more than one unit of blood was ordered at a time decreased from 65% to 23%, P < 0.001. The incidence of surgical site infections declined in the post-intervention group, otherwise there were no differences in 30-day mortality, cardiac, venous thromboembolism or readmission rates between the groups. The projected cost savings was $161,112 over the 12-month intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an educational based transfusion reduction program was associated with substantial reductions in perioperative transfusions and cost without significant changes in morbidity or mortality.

What Is the Real Rate of Surgical Site Infection?

PURPOSE: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are associated with patient morbidity and increased health care costs. Although several national organizations including the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) monitor SSI, there is no standard reporting methodology. METHODS: We queried the UHC, NSQIP, and NHSN databases from July 2012 to June 2014 for SSI after gynecologic surgery at our institution. Each organization uses different definitions and inclusion and exclusion criteria for SSI. The rate of SSI was also obtained from chart review from April 1 to June 30, 2014. SSI was classified as superficial, deep, or organ space infection. The rates reported by the agencies were compared with the rates obtained by chart review using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Overall SSI rates for the databases were as follows: UHC, 1.5%; NSQIP, 8.8%; and NHSN, 2.8% (P < .001). The individual databases had wide variation in the rate of deep infection (UHC, 0.7%; NSQIP, 4.7%; NHSN, 1.3%; P < .001) and organ space infection (UHC, 0.4%; NSQIP, 4.4%; NHSN, 1.4%; P < .001). In agreement with the variation in reporting methodology, only 19 cases (24.4%) were included in more than one database and only one case was included in all three databases (1.3%). CONCLUSION: There is discordance among national reporting agencies tracking SSI. Adopting standardized metrics across agencies could improve consistency and accuracy in assessing SSI rates.