Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ann Surg. 2018 Mar;267(3):473-477. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002216.
The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of emergency operations performed at critical access and non-critical access hospitals.
Critical access hospitals are often the only source of surgical care for rural populations. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients undergoing common, elective operations at these rural hospitals have similar outcomes to their urban counterparts. Little is known, however, about the quality of care these hospitals provide for emergency operations for which they are most essential.
We performed a cross-sectional retrospective review of 219,170 urgent or emergency colon resections among Medicare beneficiaries between 2009 and 2012. We compared mortality, serious complications, reoperation, and readmission rates at critical access and non-critical access hospitals using a multivariable logistic regression to adjust for patient factors (age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidities,) indication (cancer, diverticulitis, obstruction, inflammatory bowel disease, bleeding), year of operation, and type of operation.
Operative indications were similar at both critical access and non-critical access hospitals with the most common being cancer (38.5% vs 31.1%) followed by diverticulitis (26.9% vs 28.0%). Compared with patients treated at non-critical access hospitals, patients undergoing surgery at critical access hospitals were less likely to have multiple comorbid diseases (% of patients with 2 or more comorbid conditions, 67.5% vs 75.9%; P < 0.01). After accounting for these differences, patients in critical access hospitals had lower risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates (14.3% vs 16.2%; P = 0.012) and lower rates of serious complications (11.1% vs 27.2%; P < 0.001). However, critical access hospitals had higher rates of reoperation (2.1% vs 1.4%; P = 0.009) and readmissions (22.3% vs 19.4%; P < 0.001).
For emergency colectomy procedures, Medicare beneficiaries in critical access hospitals experienced lower mortality rates but more frequent reoperation and readmission. These findings suggest that critical access hospitals provide safe, essential emergency surgical care, but may need more resources for postoperative care coordination in these high-risk operations.
本研究旨在比较在关键通道和非关键通道医院进行紧急手术的手术结果。
关键通道医院通常是农村地区唯一的外科护理来源。先前的研究表明,在这些农村医院接受常见的选择性手术的患者与城市同行的结果相似。然而,对于这些医院为紧急手术提供的护理质量知之甚少,这些紧急手术对他们来说是至关重要的。
我们对 2009 年至 2012 年间医疗保险受益人的 219170 例紧急或急诊结肠切除术进行了横断面回顾性研究。我们使用多变量逻辑回归比较了关键通道和非关键通道医院的死亡率、严重并发症、再次手术和再入院率,以调整患者因素(年龄、性别、种族、Elixhauser 合并症)、适应症(癌症、憩室炎、梗阻、炎症性肠病、出血)、手术年份和手术类型。
关键通道和非关键通道医院的手术适应症相似,最常见的是癌症(38.5% vs 31.1%),其次是憩室炎(26.9% vs 28.0%)。与在非关键通道医院接受治疗的患者相比,在关键通道医院接受手术的患者合并症较少(患有 2 种或更多合并症的患者比例,67.5% vs 75.9%;P <0.01)。在考虑到这些差异后,关键通道医院的患者风险调整后 30 天死亡率较低(14.3% vs 16.2%;P = 0.012),严重并发症发生率较低(11.1% vs 27.2%;P < 0.001)。然而,关键通道医院的再次手术率较高(2.1% vs 1.4%;P = 0.009)和再入院率较高(22.3% vs 19.4%;P < 0.001)。
对于急诊结肠切除术,关键通道医院的医疗保险受益人死亡率较低,但再次手术和再入院的频率较高。这些发现表明,关键通道医院提供安全、基本的紧急外科护理,但在这些高风险手术中,可能需要更多资源进行术后护理协调。