BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between all-cause, risk-adjusted, in-hospital mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the proportion of preventable in-hospital deaths as a measure of quality of care at an institution level. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 347 randomly selected in-hospital deaths after isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery at 9 institutions in Ontario over the period of 1998 to 2003. Nurse-abstracted chart summaries were reviewed by 2 experienced cardiac surgeons who were blinded to patient, surgeon, and hospital and used a standardized implicit tool to identify preventable death. A third reviewer reassessed all cases in which the first 2 reviewers disagreed. Rates of preventable deaths were estimated for each hospital and compared with all-cause mortality rates. A structured adverse event audit completed by each surgeon-reviewer was used to identify quality improvement opportunities for the preventable deaths. A total of 111 of 347 deaths (32%) were judged preventable despite a low risk-adjusted mortality range (1.3% to 3.1%) across hospitals. No significant correlation was found between all-cause, risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates and the proportion of preventable deaths at the hospital level (Spearman coefficient, -0.42; P=0.26). A large proportion of preventable deaths were related to problems in the operating room (86%) and intensive care unit (61%). Many deaths were associated with deviations in perioperative care (32% based on concurrence of 2 reviewers, and another 42% in cases in which 1 reviewer reached that opinion). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of in-hospital coronary artery bypass graft deaths were judged preventable by surgeon reviewers. All-cause risk-adjusted mortality rates are convenient measures of institutional quality of care but were not correlated with preventable mortality in our jurisdiction. Providers should conduct detailed adverse event audits to drive meaningful improvements in quality.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between all-cause, risk-adjusted, in-hospital mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the proportion of preventable in-hospital deaths as a measure of quality of care at an institution level. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 347 randomly selected in-hospital deaths after isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery at 9 institutions in Ontario over the period of 1998 to 2003. Nurse-abstracted chart summaries were reviewed by 2 experienced cardiac surgeons who were blinded to patient, surgeon, and hospital and used a standardized implicit tool to identify preventable death. A third reviewer reassessed all cases in which the first 2 reviewers disagreed. Rates of preventable deaths were estimated for each hospital and compared with all-cause mortality rates. A structured adverse event audit completed by each surgeon-reviewer was used to identify quality improvement opportunities for the preventable deaths. A total of 111 of 347 deaths (32%) were judged preventable despite a low risk-adjusted mortality range (1.3% to 3.1%) across hospitals. No significant correlation was found between all-cause, risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates and the proportion of preventable deaths at the hospital level (Spearman coefficient, -0.42; P=0.26). A large proportion of preventable deaths were related to problems in the operating room (86%) and intensive care unit (61%). Many deaths were associated with deviations in perioperative care (32% based on concurrence of 2 reviewers, and another 42% in cases in which 1 reviewer reached that opinion). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of in-hospital coronary artery bypass graft deaths were judged preventable by surgeon reviewers. All-cause risk-adjusted mortality rates are convenient measures of institutional quality of care but were not correlated with preventable mortality in our jurisdiction. Providers should conduct detailed adverse event audits to drive meaningful improvements in quality.
Authors: Ian J Barbash; Hongwei Zhang; Derek C Angus; Steven E Reis; Chung-Chou H Chang; Francis R Pike; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amin Madani; Jordan Gornitsky; Yusuke Watanabe; Cassandre Benay; Maria S Altieri; Philip H Pucher; Roger Tabah; Elliot J Mitmaker Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Douglas A Wiegmann; Ashley A Eggman; Andrew W Elbardissi; Sarah Henrickson Parker; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Sarah E Henrickson Parker; Aaron A Laviana; Rishi K Wadhera; Douglas A Wiegmann; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Mark J Ricciardi; Faith Selzer; Oscar C Marroquin; Elizabeth M Holper; Lakshmi Venkitachalam; David O Williams; Sheryl F Kelsey; Warren K Laskey Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Helen Hogan; Frances Healey; Graham Neale; Richard Thomson; Charles Vincent; Nick Black Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Amin Madani; Babak Namazi; Maria S Altieri; Daniel A Hashimoto; Angela Maria Rivera; Philip H Pucher; Allison Navarrete-Welton; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; L Michael Brunt; Allan Okrainec; Adnan Alseidi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 13.787