The use and costs of same-day surgery versus overnight admission for total thyroidectomy: A multi-state, all-payer analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient thyroidectomy is increasingly favored, given evidence of safety and convenience for selected patients. However, the prevalence of same-day discharge is unclear. We aimed to evaluate temporal trends, hospital characteristics, and costs associated with same-day discharge after total thyroidectomy in an all-payer, multi-state cohort. METHODS: We included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent a total thyroidectomy (2013-2019) using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data. Admission type was defined as same-day, overnight, or inpatient based on length of stay. Same-day patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 with overnight patients. Hospital characteristics and costs were compared in the matched cohort. RESULTS: Among 86,187 patients who underwent total thyroidectomy, 16,743 (19.4%) cases were same-day, 59,778 (69.4%) were overnight, and 9,666 (11.2%) were inpatient. The proportion of patients who underwent same-day thyroidectomy increased from 14.8% to 20.8% over the study period (P < .001), whereas overnight admissions decreased from 72.9% to 68.8% (P < .001). In total, 9,571 same-day patients were matched to 9,571 overnight patients. Same-day patients had higher odds of treatment at a certified cancer center (odds ratio 1.77; 95% confidence interval 1.65-1.90), Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited teaching hospital (odds ratio 1.72; 95% confidence interval 1.61-1.85), and high-volume hospital (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.42-1.65). Pairwise cost differences showed median savings of $974 (interquartile range -1,610 to 3,491) for same-day relative to overnight admission (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although over two-thirds of patients are admitted overnight, same-day total thyroidectomy is increasingly performed. Same-day thyroidectomy may be a lower-cost option for selected patients, particularly in specialty centers with experience in thyroidectomy.

Non-English Primary Language: A Growing Population's Access to Cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine access to cholecystectomy and postoperative outcomes among non-English primary-speaking patients. BACKGROUND: The population of U.S. residents with limited English proficiency is growing. Language affects health literacy and is a well-recognized barrier to health care in the United States of America. Historically marginalized communities are at greater risk of requiring emergent gallbladder operations. However, little is known about how primary language affects surgical access and outcomes of common surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients after receipt of cholecystectomy in Michigan, Maryland, and New Jersey utilizing the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database (2016-2018). Patients were classified by primary spoken language: English or non-English. The primary outcome was admission type. Secondary outcomes included operative setting, operative approach, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, and length of stay. Multivariable logistics and Poisson regression were used to examine outcomes. RESULTS: Among 122,013 patients who underwent cholecystectomy, 91.6% were primarily English speaking and 8.4% were non-English primary language speaking. Primary non-English speaking patients had a higher likelihood of emergent/urgent admissions (odds ratio: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04-1.44, P = 0.015) and a lower likelihood of having an outpatient operation (odds ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91, P = 0.0008). There was no difference in the use of a minimally invasive approach or postoperative outcomes based on the primary language spoken. CONCLUSIONS: Non-English primary language speakers were more likely to access cholecystectomy through the emergency department and less likely to receive outpatient cholecystectomy. Barriers to elective surgical presentation for this growing patient population need to be further studied.

Development of a Machine Learning Model to Identify Colorectal Cancer Stage in Medicare Claims.

PURPOSE: Staging information is essential for colorectal cancer research. Medicare claims are an important source of population-level data but currently lack oncologic stage. We aimed to develop a claims-based model to identify stage at diagnosis in patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: We included patients age 66 years or older with colorectal cancer in the SEER-Medicare registry. Using patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2016, we developed models (multinomial logistic regression, elastic net regression, and random forest) to classify patients into stage I-II, III, or IV on the basis of demographics, diagnoses, and treatment utilization identified in Medicare claims. Models developed in a training cohort (2014-2016) were applied to a testing cohort (2017), and performance was evaluated using cancer stage listed in the SEER registry as the reference standard. RESULTS: The cohort of patients with 30,543 colorectal cancer included 14,935 (48.9%) patients with stage I-II, 9,203 (30.1%) with stage III, and 6,405 (21%) with stage IV disease. A claims-based model using elastic net regression had a scaled Brier score (SBS) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.46). Performance was strongest for classifying stage IV (SBS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.64; sensitivity, 93%; 95% CI, 91 to 94) followed by stage I-II (SBS, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.47; sensitivity, 86%; 95% CI, 85 to 76) and stage III (SBS, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.33; sensitivity, 62%; 95% CI, 61 to 64). CONCLUSION: Machine learning models effectively classified colorectal cancer stage using Medicare claims. These models extend the ability of claims-based research to risk-adjust and stratify by stage.

Exploring ethnic differences in post-discharge patterns of surgical care for older adults admitted with diverticulitis.

AIM: We aimed to evaluate ethnic differences in patterns of care following an index nonoperative admission for acute diverticulitis amongst a universally insured patient cohort. METHODS: We identified nationwide Medicare beneficiaries aged 65.5 years or older hospitalized between 1 July 2015 and 1 November 2017 for nonoperative management of an index admission for diverticulitis. Patients were followed for 1 year to examine patterns of care. Primary categorical outcomes included receipt of an elective operation, emergency operation, nonoperative readmission or no further hospitalizations for diverticulitis. Multinomial regression was performed to determine the association between ethnicity and receipt of each primary outcome category whilst adjusting for potential confounders. We examined the use of percutaneous drainage during the index admission to better understand its association with subsequent care patterns. RESULTS: Amongst 22 630 study patients, subsequent operative treatment was less common for Black, Hispanic, Asian and American Indian patients relative to White patients. Multinomial logistic regression noted that Black (relative risk 0.40; 95% CI 0.32-0.50) and Asian (relative risk 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.91) patients were associated with the lowest relative risk of undergoing an elective interval operation compared to White patients. Black patients were also associated with a 1.43 (95% CI 1.19-1.73) increased risk of requiring subsequent nonoperative readmissions for disease recurrence compared to White patients. The use of percutaneous drainage was higher amongst White patients relative to Black patients (6.9% vs. 4.0%, P value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We have identified ongoing inequities in the consumption of medical resources, with White patients being more likely to undergo elective colectomy and percutaneous drainage. Differences in care are not fully alleviated by equal access to insurance.

Evaluating Changes in Surgical Outcomes for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Following Medicaid Expansion.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of Medicaid expansion on the surgical care of inflammatory bowel disease. We sought to determine whether Medicaid expansion is associated with improved postsurgical outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing a colorectal resection. METHODS: We performed a risk-adjusted difference-in-difference study examining postsurgical outcomes for patients ages 26 to 64 with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis undergoing a colorectal resection across 15 states that did and did not expand Medicaid before (2012-2013) and after (2016-2018) policy reform. Primary study outcomes included 30-day readmission and postoperative complication. RESULTS: Study population included 11 394 patients with inflammatory bowel disease that underwent a colorectal resection. States that underwent Medicaid expansion were associated with a rise in Medicaid enrollment following policy reform (11.8% pre-Medicaid expansion vs 19.7% post-Medicaid expansion). Difference-in-difference analysis revealed a statistically significant lower odds of 30-day readmission in patients undergoing a colorectal resection in expansion states following policy reform relative to patients in nonexpansion states prior to reform (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.86). No changes in odds of postoperative complication were noted across expansion and nonexpansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion is associated with a rise in Medicaid enrollment in expansion states following policy reform. There were greater improvements in postoperative outcomes associated with patients in expansion states following policy reform relative to patients in nonexpansion states prior to reform, which may have been related to improved perioperative care and medical management.

How Referring Providers Choose Specialists for Their Patients: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Physician referrals are a critical step in directing patients to high-quality specialists. Despite efforts to encourage referrals to high-volume hospitals, many patients receive treatment at low-volume centers with worse outcomes. We aimed to determine the most important factors considered by referring providers when selecting specialists for their patients through a systematic review of medical and surgical literature. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched from January 2000 to July 2021 using terms related to referrals, specialty, surgery, primary care, and decision-making. We included survey and interview studies reporting the factors considered by healthcare providers as they refer patients to specialists in the USA. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Quality was assessed using the CASP Checklist. A qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize common decision factors across studies. RESULTS: We screened 1,972 abstracts and identified 7 studies for inclusion, reporting on 1,575 providers. Thematic analysis showed that referring providers consider factors related to the specialist's clinical expertise (skill, training, outcomes, and assessments), interactions between the patient and specialist (prior experience, rapport, location, scheduling, preference, and insurance), and interactions between the referring physician and specialist (personal relationships, communication, reputation, reciprocity, and practice or system affiliation). Notably, studies did not describe how providers assess clinical or technical skills. CONCLUSIONS: Referring providers rely on subjective factors and assessments to evaluate quality when selecting a specialist. There may be a role for guidelines and objective measures of quality to inform the choice of specialist by referring providers.

Reporting of Discrimination by Health Care Consumers Through Online Consumer Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about how discrimination in health care relates to inequities in hospital-based care because of limitations in the ability to measure discrimination. Consumer reviews offer a novel source of data to capture experiences of discrimination in health care settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine how health care consumers perceive and report discrimination through public consumer reviews. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study assessed Yelp online reviews from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, of 100 randomly selected acute care hospitals in the US. Word filtering was used to identify reviews potentially related to discrimination by using keywords abstracted from the Everyday Discrimination Scale, a commonly used questionnaire to measure discrimination. A codebook was developed through a modified grounded theory and qualitative content analysis approach to categorize recurrent themes of discrimination, which was then applied to the hospital reviews. EXPOSURES: Reported experiences of discrimination within a health care setting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Perceptions of how discrimination in health care is experienced and reported by consumers. RESULTS: A total of 10 535 reviews were collected. Reviews were filtered by words commonly associated with discriminatory experiences, which identified 2986 reviews potentially related to discrimination. Using the codebook, the team manually identified 182 reviews that described at least 1 instance of discrimination. Acts of discrimination were categorized by actors of discrimination (individual vs institution), setting (clinical vs nonclinical), and directionality (whether consumers expressed discriminatory beliefs toward health care staff). A total of 53 reviews (29.1%) were coded as examples of institutional racism; 89 reviews (48.9%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in clinical spaces as consumers were waiting for or actively receiving care; 25 reviews (13.7%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in nonclinical spaces, such as lobbies; and 66 reviews (36.3%) documented discrimination by the consumer directed at the health care workforce. Acts of discrimination are described through 6 recurrent themes, including acts of commission, omission, unprofessionalism, disrespect, stereotyping, and dehumanizing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this qualitative study, consumer reviews were found to highlight recurrent patterns of discrimination within health care settings. Applying quality improvement tools, such as the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, to this source of data and this study's findings may help inform assessments and initiatives directed at reducing discrimination within the health care setting.

Prospective implementation of a standardized screening protocol for deep venous thrombosis in abdominal surgical oncology patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a major cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality despite implementation of prophylaxis guidelines. We sought to identify risk factors for occult deep venous thrombosis (DVT) following abdominal surgery for cancer and measure the clinical impact of a prospectively implemented standardized postoperative DVT screening protocol. METHODS: Patients undergoing abdominal surgery for malignant indication were screened with early postoperative lower extremity duplex to identify DVT. Clinical and pathologic factors associated with DVT were identified. RESULTS: Among 255 patients meeting study criteria, 25 (9.8%) had occult lower extremity DVT on routine postoperative screening. Prior history of VTE and lower preoperative hemoglobin were independently associated with DVT (OR, 9.05; P = 0.004; and OR, 1.27; P = 0.025, respectively). Preoperative chemotherapy within 1 year and thrombocytopenia were associated with DVT in univariate analyses only. Five patients developed postoperative pulmonary emboli (2.0%); three following negative duplex and two following positive duplex for distal DVT for which the patients were not therapeutically anticoagulated due to a contraindication. There were no pulmonary emboli in duplex-positive patients who were anticoagulated or who had vena cava filter placed. CONCLUSION: Despite prophylaxis, the prevalence of occult DVT in abdominal oncologic surgery patients is considerable. Postoperative screening duplex can identify these events to guide management.