Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA.
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Mar;212(3):277-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.001.
Trauma surgeons increasingly care for emergency general surgery (EGS) patients. The extent to which trauma center (TC) performance improvement translates into improved quality for EGS is unknown. We hypothesized that EGS outcomes in TCs would be similar to outcomes in non-trauma centers (NTC); failure to support our hypothesis suggests that the effects of trauma performance improvement have extended beyond trauma patients.
We retrospectively studied EGS procedures at TCs versus NTCs among American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participants (2005-2008). Thirty-day outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality. TC versus NTC outcomes were compared using regression modeling, observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios (among hospitals submitting ≥20 EGS procedures), and outlier status (hospitals whose O/E confidence interval excludes 1.0).
Of 68,003 patients at 222 hospitals, 42,264 (62.2%) were treated at 121 TCs; 25,739 (37.8%) were treated at 101 NTCs. TCs had significantly higher overall morbidity (21.4% versus 17.2%; p < 0.0001), serious morbidity (15.8% versus 12.3%; p < 0.0001), and mortality (6.4% versus 4.8%; p < 0.0001) than NTCs. On adjusted analyses, TC status was a significant predictor of overall morbidity (odds ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21), but not serious morbidity (odds ratio = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.19) or mortality (odds ratio = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.04). Among 211 hospitals assigned O/E ratios, TCs were more likely, although not significantly so, to be high outliers for overall morbidity (7.6% versus 4.3%; p = 0.017), serious morbidity (5.1% versus 4.3%; p = 0.034), and mortality (3.4% versus 2.2%; p > 0.099).
Although overall morbidity tended to favor NTCs, mortality was no different. This suggests that the trauma performance improvement processes have not been applied to EGS patients, despite being cared for by similar providers. Despite having processes for trauma, there remains the opportunity for quality improvement for EGS care.
创伤外科医生越来越多地照顾急症普通外科 (EGS) 患者。创伤中心 (TC) 的绩效改善在多大程度上转化为 EGS 的质量提高尚不清楚。我们假设 TCs 的 EGS 结果将与非创伤中心 (NTC) 的结果相似;如果不能支持我们的假设,这表明创伤绩效改进的影响已经超出了创伤患者。
我们对美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划参与者 (2005-2008 年) 中的 TC 与 NTC 之间的 EGS 手术进行了回顾性研究。30 天的结果是整体发病率、严重发病率和死亡率。使用回归模型、观察到的与预期的比值 (在提交 ≥20 例 EGS 手术的医院中) 和异常值状态 (置信区间不包括 1.0 的医院) 比较 TC 与 NTC 的结果。
在 222 家医院的 68003 名患者中,42264 名 (62.2%) 在 121 家 TC 接受治疗;25739 名 (37.8%) 在 101 家 NTC 接受治疗。TC 的总发病率 (21.4% 与 17.2%;p < 0.0001)、严重发病率 (15.8% 与 12.3%;p < 0.0001) 和死亡率 (6.4% 与 4.8%;p < 0.0001) 明显高于 NTC。在调整后的分析中,TC 状态是整体发病率的显著预测因素 (优势比 = 1.11;95%CI,1.01-1.21),但不是严重发病率 (优势比 = 1.08;95%CI,0.98-1.19) 或死亡率 (优势比 = 0.92;95%CI,0.82-1.04)。在被分配观察到的与预期比值的 211 家医院中,TC 更有可能成为整体发病率的高异常值 (7.6% 与 4.3%;p = 0.017)、严重发病率 (5.1% 与 4.3%;p = 0.034) 和死亡率 (3.4% 与 2.2%;p > 0.099)。
尽管总发病率倾向于有利于 NTC,但死亡率没有差异。这表明,尽管由类似的提供者照顾,但创伤绩效改进过程并未应用于 EGS 患者。尽管有创伤处理过程,但仍有机会提高 EGS 护理质量。