Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part III: Standardization, Protocols, and Achieving Better Outcomes for Patient Care.

BACKGROUND: After decades of experience supporting surgical quality and safety by the American College of Surgeons, the ACS Quality Verification Program (ACS QVP) was developed to help hospitals improve surgical quality and safety. This review is the final installment of a three-part review aimed to synthesize evidence supporting the main principles of the ACS QVP. STUDY DESIGN: Evidence was systematically reviewed for three principles: standardized team-based care across five phases of surgical care, disease-based management, and external regulatory review. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 and two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 5,237 studies across these three topics were identified. Studies were included if they evaluated the relationship between the standard of interest and patient-level or organization measures within the last twenty years. RESULTS: After applying inclusion criteria, a total of 150 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. Despite institutional variation in standardized clinical pathways, evidence demonstrated improved outcomes such as reduced length of stay (LOS), costs, and complications. Evidence for multidisciplinary disease-based care protocols was mixed, though trended towards improving patient outcomes such as reduced LOS and readmissions. Similarly, the evidence for accreditation and adherence to external process measures was also mixed, though several studies demonstrated the benefit of accreditation programs on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The identified literature supports the importance of standardized multidisciplinary and disease-based processes and external regulatory systems to improve quality of care.

Are We Supporting Surgical Quality Improvement in Training and Beyond? A Qualitative Study of Surgical Trainees and Practicing Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a qualitative study to describe surgeon and surgical trainee perspectives of quality improvement (QI) in training and practice to elucidate how surgeons and trainees interact with barriers and leverage facilitators to learn and conduct QI. STUDY DESIGN: Surgeons and surgical trainees of the American College of Surgeons were recruited via email and snowball sampling to participate in focus groups. Eligible individuals were English speaking surgical trainees or practicing surgeons. We developed a semi-structured focus group protocol to explore barriers and facilitators of quality training and improvement. An inductive thematic approach was used to identify actionable items. RESULTS: Thirty-two surgical trainees and surgeons participated in six focus groups. 28% of participants were trainees (8 residents, 1 fellow) and 72% were practicing surgeons, representing practice settings in university, community, and Veterans Affairs hospitals in urban and suburban regions. Thematic analysis revealed the central theme among trainees was that they lacked necessary support to effectively learn and conduct QI. Dominant sub-themes included lack of formal education, insufficient time, inconsistent mentorship, and maximizing self-sufficiency to promotes success. The central theme among surgeons was that effective QI initiatives require adequate resources and institutional support; however, surgeons in this study were ultimately constrained by institutional limitations. Sub-themes included difficulties in data acquisition and interpretation, financial limitations, workforce and staffing challenges, misaligned stakeholder priorities, and institutional culture. CONCLUSION: This qualitative evaluation further details gaps in QI demonstrated by previous quantitative studies. There is an opportunity to address these gaps with dedicated QI training and mentorship for surgical trainees and by creating a supportive environment with ample resources for surgeons.

Establishing the clinical relevance of grade A post-hepatectomy liver failure.

INTRODUCTION: The International Study Group of Liver Surgery's criteria stratifies post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) into grades A, B, and C. The clinical significance of these grades has not been fully established. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) hepatectomy-targeted database was analyzed. Outcomes between patients without PHLF, with grade A PHLF, and grade B or C PHLF were compared. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Six thousand two hundred seventy-four adults undergoing elective major hepatectomy were included in the analysis. The incidence of grade A PHLF was 4.3% and grade B or C was 5.3%. Mortality was similar between patients without PHLF (1.2%) and with grade A PHLF (1.1%), but higher in those with grades B or C PHLF (25.4%). Overall morbidities rates were 19.3%, 41.7%, and 72.8% in patients without PHLF, with grade A PHLF, and with grade B or C PHLF, respectively (p < 0.001). Grade A PHLF was associated with increased morbidity (grade A: odds ratios [OR] 2.7 [95% CI: 2.0-3.5]), unplanned reoperation (grade A: OR 3.4 [95% CI: 2.2-5.1]), nonoperative intervention (grade A: OR 2.6 [95% CI: 1.9-3.6]), length of stay (grade A: OR 3.1 [95% CI: 2.3-4.1]), and readmission (grade A: OR 1.8 [95% CI: 1.3-2.5]) compared to patients without PHLF. CONCLUSIONS: Although mortality was similar between patients without PHLF and with grade A PHLF, other postoperative outcomes were notably inferior. Grade A PHLF is a clinically distinct entity with relevant associated postoperative morbidity.

Multisite Implementation of an American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Coalition for Quality in Geriatric Surgery (CQGS) identified standards of surgical care for the growing, vulnerable population of aging adults in the US. The aims of this study were to determine implementation feasibility for 30 selected standards, identify barriers and best practices in their implementation, and further refine these geriatric standards and verification process. STUDY DESIGN: The CQGS requested participation from hospitals involved in the ACS NSQIP Geriatric Surgery Pilot Project, previous CQGS feasibility analyses, and hospitals affiliated with a core development team member. Thirty standards were selected for implementation. After implementation, site visits were conducted, and postvisit surveys were distributed. RESULTS: Eight hospitals were chosen to participate. Program management (55%), immediate preoperative and intraoperative clinical care (62.5%), and postoperative clinical care (58%) had the highest mean percentage of "fully compliant" standards. Goals and decision-making (30%), preoperative optimization (28%), and transitions of care (12.5%) had the lowest mean percentage of fully compliant standards. Best practices and barriers to implementation were identified across 13 of the 30 standards. More than 80% of the institutions reported that participation changed the surgical care provided for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first national implementation assessment undertaken by the ACS for one of its quality programs. The CQGS pilot testing was able to demonstrate implementation feasibility for 30 standards, identify challenges and best practices, and further inform dissemination of the ACS Geriatric Surgery Verification Program.

Influence of Perioperative COVID-19 Infection on Surgical Outcomes and Risk Adjustment for Quality Assessment in the American College of Surgeons NSQIP.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients with perioperative coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) infection experience higher rates of adverse events than those without COVID-19, which may lead to imprecision in hospital-level quality assessment. Our objectives were to quantify differences in COVID-19-associated adverse events in a large national sample and examine distortions in surgical quality benchmarking if COVID-19 status is not considered. STUDY DESIGN: Data included 793,280 patient records from the American College of Surgeons NSQIP from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Models predicting 30-day mortality, morbidity, pneumonia, and ventilator dependency greater than 48 hours, and unplanned intubation were constructed. Risk adjustment variables were selected for these models from standard NSQIP predictors and perioperative COVID-19 status. RESULTS: A total of 5,878 (0.66%) had preoperative COVID-19, and 5,215 (0.58%) had postoperative COVID-19. COVID-19 rates demonstrated some consistency across hospitals (median preoperative 0.84%, interquartile range 0.14% to 0.84%; median postoperative 0.50%, interquartile range 0.24% to 0.78%). Postoperative COVID-19 was always associated with increased adverse events. For postoperative COVID-19 among all cases, there was nearly a 6-fold increase in mortality (1.07% to 6.37%) and15-fold increase in pneumonia (0.92% to 13.57%), excluding the diagnosis of COVID-19 itself. The effects of preoperative COVID-19 were less consistent. Inclusion of COVID-19 in risk-adjustment models had minimal effects on surgical quality assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative COVID-19 was associated with a dramatic increase in adverse events. However, quality benchmarking was minimally affected. This may be the result of low overall COVID-19 rates or balance in rates established across hospitals during the 1-year observational period. There remains limited evidence for restructuring ACS NSQIP risk-adjustment for the time-limited effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.