Suppr超能文献

手术质量改进中风险调整方法的比较

Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement.

作者信息

Steinberg Steven M, Popa Michael R, Michalek Judith A, Bethel Matthew J, Ellison E Christopher

机构信息

Department of Surgery Division of Critical Care, Trauma and Burn, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

出版信息

Surgery. 2008 Oct;144(4):662-7; discussion 662-7. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.06.010.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

All hospitals are required to perform quality assurance activities. Many risk adjustment methodologies have been developed, and many medical centers use 1 or more than 1 risk adjustment program in an attempt to characterize their outcomes better rather than simply assessing unadjusted outcome statistics. The University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) and American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) both produce risk-adjusted outcome data. Our institution recognized a large disparity between our UHC and NSQIP risk-adjusted mortality. The purpose of this study was to attempt to discover the cause of that disparity.

METHODS

One hundred twenty consecutive NSQIP records were matched with their UHC submissions during 2006. All patients' comorbidities and outcomes were reviewed, and the 2 systems, UHC and NSQIP, were compared for degree of discordance.

RESULTS

Approximately twice the number of comorbidities per patient were documented in UHC (2.85+/-2.52) submissions compared with NSQIP (1.38+/-1.52, P < .001). The reporting of the comorbidities of hypertension, cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, and diabetes between UHC and NSQIP were similar in the percentage of patients reported as having each of those disease states, but the discordance between the 2 systems was 12%, 13%, 15%, and 5%, respectively (P < .001 in all 4). A total of 28% of patients were reported as suffering complications in NSQIP but only 11% in UHC, with a 26% rate of discordance (P < .01). Overall, 13% of patients were reported as having a surgical site infection in NSQIP, but only 1% in UHC.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant differences in the reporting of both comorbidities and outcomes between our medical center's submissions to UHC and NSQIP in a consecutive series of patients. This may be at least partially responsible for the difference in the risk-adjusted mortality for our institution, as reported by UHC and NSQIP.

摘要

背景

所有医院都必须开展质量保证活动。已经开发出许多风险调整方法,许多医疗中心使用一种或多种风险调整程序,试图更好地描述其治疗结果,而不是简单地评估未经调整的结果统计数据。大学卫生系统联盟(UHC)和美国外科医师学会-国家外科质量改进计划(NSQIP)都能提供风险调整后的结果数据。我们机构发现,我们的UHC和NSQIP风险调整后的死亡率存在很大差异。本研究的目的是试图找出造成这种差异的原因。

方法

2006年期间,将连续120份NSQIP记录与其对应的UHC提交记录进行匹配。对所有患者的合并症和治疗结果进行审查,并比较UHC和NSQIP这两个系统的不一致程度。

结果

与NSQIP(1.38±1.52,P < 0.001)相比,UHC提交记录中记录的每位患者合并症数量大约是其两倍(2.85±2.52)。UHC和NSQIP之间关于高血压、心脏病、肺病和糖尿病合并症的报告,在报告患有每种疾病状态的患者百分比方面相似,但两个系统之间的不一致率分别为12%、13%、15%和5%(所有4项P均 < 0.001)。在NSQIP中,共有28%的患者被报告发生并发症,但在UHC中仅为11%,不一致率为26%(P < 0.01)。总体而言,在NSQIP中,13%的患者被报告发生手术部位感染,但在UHC中仅为1%。

结论

我们发现,在连续一系列患者中,我们医疗中心向UHC和NSQIP提交的报告在合并症和治疗结果的报告方面存在显著差异。这可能至少部分是导致UHC和NSQIP报告的我们机构风险调整后死亡率存在差异的原因。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验