BACKGROUND: Surgical checklists are increasingly used to improve compliance with evidence-based processes in the perioperative period. Although enthusiasm exists for using checklists to improve outcomes, recent studies have questioned their effectiveness in large populations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the association of Keystone Surgery, a statewide implementation of an evidence-based checklist and Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program, on surgical outcomes and health care costs. METHODS: We performed a study using national Medicare claims data for patients undergoing general and vascular surgery (n=1,002,241) from 2006 to 2011. A difference-in-differences approach was used to evaluate whether implementation was associated with improved surgical outcomes and decreased costs when compared with a national cohort of nonparticipating hospitals. Propensity score matching was used to select 10 control hospitals for each participating hospital. Costs were assessed using price-standardized 30-day Medicare payments for acute hospitalizations, readmissions, and high-cost outliers. RESULTS: Keystone Surgery implementation in participating centers (N=95 hospitals) was not associated with improved outcomes. Difference-in-differences analysis accounting for trends in nonparticipating hospitals (N=950 hospitals) revealed no differences in adjusted rates of 30-day mortality [relative risk (RR)=1.03; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.97-1.10], any complication (RR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.07), reoperations (RR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.56-1.22), or readmissions (RR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). Medicare payments for the index admission increased following implementation ($516 average increase in payments; 95% CI, $210-$823 increase), as did readmission payments ($564 increase; 95% CI, $89-$1040 increase). High-outlier payments ($965 increase; 95% CI, $974decrease to $2904 increase) did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of Keystone Surgery in Michigan was not associated with improved outcomes or decreased costs in Medicare patients.
BACKGROUND: Surgical checklists are increasingly used to improve compliance with evidence-based processes in the perioperative period. Although enthusiasm exists for using checklists to improve outcomes, recent studies have questioned their effectiveness in large populations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the association of Keystone Surgery, a statewide implementation of an evidence-based checklist and Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program, on surgical outcomes and health care costs. METHODS: We performed a study using national Medicare claims data for patients undergoing general and vascular surgery (n=1,002,241) from 2006 to 2011. A difference-in-differences approach was used to evaluate whether implementation was associated with improved surgical outcomes and decreased costs when compared with a national cohort of nonparticipating hospitals. Propensity score matching was used to select 10 control hospitals for each participating hospital. Costs were assessed using price-standardized 30-day Medicare payments for acute hospitalizations, readmissions, and high-cost outliers. RESULTS: Keystone Surgery implementation in participating centers (N=95 hospitals) was not associated with improved outcomes. Difference-in-differences analysis accounting for trends in nonparticipating hospitals (N=950 hospitals) revealed no differences in adjusted rates of 30-day mortality [relative risk (RR)=1.03; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.97-1.10], any complication (RR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.07), reoperations (RR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.56-1.22), or readmissions (RR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). Medicare payments for the index admission increased following implementation ($516 average increase in payments; 95% CI, $210-$823 increase), as did readmission payments ($564 increase; 95% CI, $89-$1040 increase). High-outlier payments ($965 increase; 95% CI, $974decrease to $2904 increase) did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of Keystone Surgery in Michigan was not associated with improved outcomes or decreased costs in Medicare patients.
Authors: David C Miller; Cathryn Gust; Justin B Dimick; Nancy Birkmeyer; Jonathan Skinner; John D Birkmeyer Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Pedro J Saturno; Víctor Soria-Aledo; Zenewton A Da Silva Gama; Felipe Lorca-Parra; Marina Grau-Polan Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jonah J Stulberg; Conor P Delaney; Duncan V Neuhauser; David C Aron; Pingfu Fu; Siran M Koroukian Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hugh R Waters; Roy Korn; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Sean M Berenholtz; Christine A Goeschel; Dale M Needham; Julius C Pham; Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Sam R Watson; Patricia Posa; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Eefje N de Vries; Hubert A Prins; Rogier M P H Crolla; Adriaan J den Outer; George van Andel; Sven H van Helden; Wolfgang S Schlack; M Agnès van Putten; Dirk J Gouma; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Susanne M Smorenburg; Marja A Boermeester Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carrie H Colla; David E Wennberg; Ellen Meara; Jonathan S Skinner; Daniel Gottlieb; Valerie A Lewis; Christopher M Snyder; Elliott S Fisher Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer M Weller; Tanisha Jowsey; Carmen Skilton; Derryn A Gargiulo; Oleg N Medvedev; Ian Civil; Jacqueline A Hannam; Simon J Mitchell; Jane Torrie; Alan F Merry Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-12-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Richard Capra; Stefano A Bini; Dawn E Bowden; Katherine Etter; Matt Callahan; Richard T Smith; Thomas Parker Vail Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 1.817