Literature DB >> 23443533

Real-time outcome monitoring following oesophagectomy using cumulative sum techniques.

Geoffrey Roberts1, Cheuk-Bong Tang, Mike Harvey, Sritharan Kadirkamanathan.   

Abstract

AIM: To examine the feasibility of prospective, real-time outcome monitoring in a United Kingdom oesophago-gastric cancer surgery unit.
METHODS: The first 100 hybrid (laparoscopic abdominal phase, open thoracic phase) Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomies performed by a United Kingdom oesophago-gastric cancer surgery unit were assessed retrospectively using cumulative sum (CUSUM) techniques. The monitored outcome was 30-d post-operative mortality, with the accepted mortality risk defined as 5%. A variable life adjusted display (VLAD) was constructed by plotting a graph of cumulative mortality minus cumulative mortality risk on the y axis vs sequential case number on the x axis. This was modified to a zeroed VLAD by preventing the plot from crossing the y = 0 axis - essentially creating two plots, one examining trends where cumulative mortality was higher than mortality risk (i.e., worse than expected outcomes) where y > 0, and vice versa. Alert lines were set at y = ± 2. At any point where a plot breaches an alert line, it is felt that the 30-d post-operative mortality rate has deviated significantly from that expected and an internal review should be performed.
RESULTS: One hundred cases were assessed, with a mean age of 66.4 years, mean T stage of 2.1, and mean N stage of 0.48. Three cases were commenced using a laparoscopic technique and converted to open surgery due to technical factors. Median length of inpatient stay was 15 d. The crude 30 d mortality was 5% and the incidence of clinically significant anastomotic leak was 6%. The VLAD demonstrated a plot of cumulative mortality minus cumulative mortality risk (i.e., 5% per case) which remained in the range -1.4 to +0.5 excess mortalities. With the alert set at two greater or fewer than predicted mortalities, this method does not approach the point of triggering internal review. It is however arguable that a run of performance that is better than expected, causing the plot to be well below y = 0, would mask a subsequent run of poor performance by requiring a rise of greater than two excess mortalities to trigger the alert line. The zeroed VLAD removes this problem by preventing the plot that is examining above expected mortality from passing below y = 0, and vice versa. In this study period, no audit triggers were reached. It is therefore possible to independently assess runs of good, or poor performance and so target internal audit to the appropriate series of cases. It is important to note this technique allows targeted internal review, in response to both above and below average outcomes. This study has demonstrated the feasibility of prospective outcome monitoring using the above techniques, actual real-time implementation has the potential to pick up and reinforce good practices when performance is better than predicted, and provide an early warning system for when performance falls below that predicted. Further development is possible, including more patient specific risk adjustment using the oesophago-gastric surgery physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity score.
CONCLUSION: CUSUM techniques provide a potential method of prospective, real-time outcome monitoring in oesophageal cancer surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cumulative sum; Mortality; Oesophagectomy; Outcome; Variable life adjusted display

Year:  2012        PMID: 23443533      PMCID: PMC3582162          DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v4.i10.234

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg


  25 in total

1.  Effect of operative volume on morbidity, mortality, and hospital use after esophagectomy for cancer.

Authors:  S G Swisher; L Deford; K W Merriman; G L Walsh; R Smythe; A Vaporicyan; J A Ajani; T Brown; R Komaki; J A Roth; J B Putnam
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.209

Review 2.  Should we continue oesophageal surgery in a district general hospital? A review of 200 consecutive cases.

Authors:  G H Dickson; R Waters; J Bull; V Kaul; J Sitzia
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Surgical workload and outcome after resection for carcinoma of the oesophagus and cardia.

Authors:  E W Gillison; J Powell; C C McConkey; R T Spychal
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Development of an adhesive surgical ward round checklist: a technique to improve patient safety.

Authors:  P Dhillon; R K J Murphy; H Ali; Z Burukan; M A Corrigan; A Sheikh; A D K Hill
Journal:  Ir Med J       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec

5.  A 10-step intraoperative surgical checklist (ISC) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy-can it really reduce conversion rates to open cholecystectomy?

Authors:  William B Robb; Gavin A Falk; John O Larkin; Ronan Waldron; Ronan P Waldron
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Implementing a surgical checklist: more than checking a box.

Authors:  Shauna M Levy; Casey E Senter; Russell B Hawkins; Jane Y Zhao; Kaitlin Doody; Lillian S Kao; Kevin P Lally; Kuojen Tsao
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  Surgical time out checklist with debriefing and multidisciplinary feedback improves venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in thoracic surgery: a prospective audit.

Authors:  Richard G Berrisford; Iain H Wilson; Mike Davidge; David Sanders
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2011-12-26       Impact factor: 4.191

8.  Development and evaluation of a checklist to support decision making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: MDT-QuIC.

Authors:  B W Lamb; N Sevdalis; C Vincent; J S A Green
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Learning curve for robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Pascal Bucher; Monika E Hagen; Gilles Chassot; Pascale Koutny-Fong; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Checklists change communication about key elements of patient care.

Authors:  Michelle Newkirk; Jeremy C Pamplin; Roderick Kuwamoto; David A Allen; Kevin K Chung
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.313

View more
  2 in total

1.  Debate: should we use variable adjusted life displays (VLAD) to identify variations in performance in general surgery?

Authors:  Stephen O Neill; Stephen J Wigmore; Ewen M Harrison
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  Comparison of Critical Care Occupancy and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients during the 2020 COVID-19 Winter Surge and 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic in Australia.

Authors:  Ary Serpa Neto; Aidan J C Burrell; Michael Bailey; Tessa Broadley; D Jamie Cooper; Craig J French; David Pilcher; Mark P Plummer; Tony Trapani; Steve A Webb; Rinaldo Bellomo; Andrew Udy
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2021-08
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.