Optimizing Complication Self-Reporting Methodologies Improves Standard of Care and Quality

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Anthony C. Antonacci MD, SM, FACS , Alexander Farrell DO , Katherine Portelli MD , Samuel P. Dechario BA , David Rindskopf PhD , Gregg Husk MD , Parswa Ansari MD, FACS , Robert Andrews MD, FACS , Alfio Carroccio MD, FACS , Gary Giangola MD, FACS
{"title":"Optimizing Complication Self-Reporting Methodologies Improves Standard of Care and Quality","authors":"Anthony C. Antonacci MD, SM, FACS ,&nbsp;Alexander Farrell DO ,&nbsp;Katherine Portelli MD ,&nbsp;Samuel P. Dechario BA ,&nbsp;David Rindskopf PhD ,&nbsp;Gregg Husk MD ,&nbsp;Parswa Ansari MD, FACS ,&nbsp;Robert Andrews MD, FACS ,&nbsp;Alfio Carroccio MD, FACS ,&nbsp;Gary Giangola MD, FACS","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2025.03.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>We utilized a single adverse event electronic self-reporting platform whose use was distinguished by three levels of faculty supervision, each at a separate hospital within our health system.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The 5-y study population included 83,885 surgical cases, 10,822 complications, 691 deaths and 3779 cases with complications collected from three independent hospitals within our health system. Each hospital reviewed cases with distinctly different levels of rigor: Site #1(Intense): a comprehensive 1-1½ h weekly meeting with resident case reporting/analysis, and in-person supervised attending review; Site #2 (Mild): resident case reporting/analysis, and occasional supervised review; Site #3 (Minimal): resident case reporting/analysis and no supervised review. Complication and mortality rates, standard of care, case mix index, length of stay and contribution margins were evaluated. Complications were treated as polynomial ordered logistic regression and modeled as logarithm of rate of complications per operation as outcome.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Complications, deaths, and # cases with complications were significantly underreported at Site #2 and Site #3. Complication and mortality rates decreased 54% and 59% at Site #1, 8% and 36% at Site #2 and increased at Site #3. The rate (%) of “cases with complications” reported was greatest for Site #1 at 5.7%. There was a 35% overall improvement in the standard of care and a reduction in length of stay by 1.83 d at Site #1 with no differences in case mix index. An improvement in resident critical thinking was observed along with a reduction in judgment and communication errors.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Self-reporting of complications and mortalities is a valid data collection and quality improvement method when it includes a standardized electronic platform and rigorous in-person, attending review. Concurrent faculty scrutiny improves quality and is a mandatory component of the review process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Research","volume":"309 ","pages":"Pages 277-287"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022480425001489","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

We utilized a single adverse event electronic self-reporting platform whose use was distinguished by three levels of faculty supervision, each at a separate hospital within our health system.

Methods

The 5-y study population included 83,885 surgical cases, 10,822 complications, 691 deaths and 3779 cases with complications collected from three independent hospitals within our health system. Each hospital reviewed cases with distinctly different levels of rigor: Site #1(Intense): a comprehensive 1-1½ h weekly meeting with resident case reporting/analysis, and in-person supervised attending review; Site #2 (Mild): resident case reporting/analysis, and occasional supervised review; Site #3 (Minimal): resident case reporting/analysis and no supervised review. Complication and mortality rates, standard of care, case mix index, length of stay and contribution margins were evaluated. Complications were treated as polynomial ordered logistic regression and modeled as logarithm of rate of complications per operation as outcome.

Results

Complications, deaths, and # cases with complications were significantly underreported at Site #2 and Site #3. Complication and mortality rates decreased 54% and 59% at Site #1, 8% and 36% at Site #2 and increased at Site #3. The rate (%) of “cases with complications” reported was greatest for Site #1 at 5.7%. There was a 35% overall improvement in the standard of care and a reduction in length of stay by 1.83 d at Site #1 with no differences in case mix index. An improvement in resident critical thinking was observed along with a reduction in judgment and communication errors.

Conclusions

Self-reporting of complications and mortalities is a valid data collection and quality improvement method when it includes a standardized electronic platform and rigorous in-person, attending review. Concurrent faculty scrutiny improves quality and is a mandatory component of the review process.
优化并发症自我报告方法提高护理标准和质量
我们使用了一个单一的不良事件电子自我报告平台,其使用由三个级别的教师监督区分,每个级别在我们卫生系统内的一个单独的医院。方法5年的研究人群包括83885例手术病例,10822例并发症,691例死亡,3779例并发症。每个医院以不同的严格程度审查病例:现场1(高强度):每周一次1-1½小时的综合会议,包括住院病例报告/分析,以及亲自监督的主治医生审查;站点2(轻度):住院病例报告/分析,偶尔进行监督审查;站点#3(最小):常驻病例报告/分析,没有监督审查。评估并发症和死亡率、护理标准、病例混合指数、住院时间和贡献幅度。并发症采用多项式有序逻辑回归处理,并以每次手术并发症发生率的对数为结果建模。结果2号和3号试验点的并发症、死亡和并发症病例数明显少报。1号位点的并发症和死亡率分别下降54%和59%,2号位点的并发症和死亡率分别下降8%和36%,3号位点的并发症和死亡率上升。报告的“并发症病例”率(%)在1号地点最高,为5.7%。护理标准总体改善35%,1号点住院时间缩短1.83 d,病例混合指数无差异。随着判断和沟通错误的减少,观察到居民批判性思维的改善。结论采用标准化的电子平台和严格的现场、出席评审,并发症和死亡自我报告是一种有效的数据收集和质量改进方法。同时进行的教师审查提高了质量,是审查过程的强制性组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
627
审稿时长
138 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Research: Clinical and Laboratory Investigation publishes original articles concerned with clinical and laboratory investigations relevant to surgical practice and teaching. The journal emphasizes reports of clinical investigations or fundamental research bearing directly on surgical management that will be of general interest to a broad range of surgeons and surgical researchers. The articles presented need not have been the products of surgeons or of surgical laboratories. The Journal of Surgical Research also features review articles and special articles relating to educational, research, or social issues of interest to the academic surgical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信