Luke Rudmik1, Yuan Xu2, Jeremiah A Alt3, Adam Deconde4, Timothy L Smith5, Rodney J Schlosser6, Hude Quan2, Zachary M Soler6. 1. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rhinology-Sinus and Skull Base Surgery Program, Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 4. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego. 5. Division of Rhinology and Sinus/Skull Base Surgery, Oregon Sinus Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. 6. Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Abstract
Importance: Several identified factors have raised questions concerning the quality of care for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), including the presence of large geographic variation in the rates and extent of surgery, poorly defined indications, and lack of ESS-specific quality metrics. Combined with the risk of major complications, ESS represents a high-value target for quality improvement. Objective: To evaluate differences in surgeon-specific performance for ESS using a risk-adjusted, 5-year ESS revision rate as a quality metric. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective study used a population-based administrative database to study adults (≥18 years of age) with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who underwent primary ESS in Alberta, Canada, between March 1, 2007, and March 1, 2010. The study period ended in 2015 to provide 5 years of follow-up. Interventions: Endoscopic sinus surgery for CRS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the 5-year observed and risk-adjusted ESS revision rate. Logistic regression was used to develop a risk adjustment model for the primary outcome. Results: A total of 43 individual surgeons performed primary ESS in 2168 patients with CRS. Within 5 years after the primary ESS procedure, 239 patients underwent revision ESS, and the mean crude 5-year ESS revision rate was 10.6% (range, 2.4%-28.6%). After applying the risk adjustment model and 95% CI to each surgeon, 7 surgeons (16%) had lower-than-expected performance and 2 surgeons (5%) had higher-than-expected performance. Three variables had significant associations with surgeon-specific, 5-year ESS revision rates: presence of nasal polyps (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.59-2.70), more annual systemic corticosteroid courses (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19-1.48), and concurrent septoplasty (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Evaluating surgeon-specific performance for ESS may provide information to assist in quality improvement. Although most surgeons had comparable risk-adjusted, 5-year ESS revision rates, 16% of surgeons had lower-than-expected performance, indicating a potential to improve quality of care. Future studies are needed to evaluate more surgeon-specific variables and validate a risk adjustment model to provide appropriate feedback for quality improvement.
Importance: Several identified factors have raised questions concerning the quality of care for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), including the presence of large geographic variation in the rates and extent of surgery, poorly defined indications, and lack of ESS-specific quality metrics. Combined with the risk of major complications, ESS represents a high-value target for quality improvement. Objective: To evaluate differences in surgeon-specific performance for ESS using a risk-adjusted, 5-year ESS revision rate as a quality metric. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective study used a population-based administrative database to study adults (≥18 years of age) with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) who underwent primary ESS in Alberta, Canada, between March 1, 2007, and March 1, 2010. The study period ended in 2015 to provide 5 years of follow-up. Interventions: Endoscopic sinus surgery for CRS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the 5-year observed and risk-adjusted ESS revision rate. Logistic regression was used to develop a risk adjustment model for the primary outcome. Results: A total of 43 individual surgeons performed primary ESS in 2168 patients with CRS. Within 5 years after the primary ESS procedure, 239 patients underwent revision ESS, and the mean crude 5-year ESS revision rate was 10.6% (range, 2.4%-28.6%). After applying the risk adjustment model and 95% CI to each surgeon, 7 surgeons (16%) had lower-than-expected performance and 2 surgeons (5%) had higher-than-expected performance. Three variables had significant associations with surgeon-specific, 5-year ESS revision rates: presence of nasal polyps (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.59-2.70), more annual systemic corticosteroid courses (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19-1.48), and concurrent septoplasty (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Evaluating surgeon-specific performance for ESS may provide information to assist in quality improvement. Although most surgeons had comparable risk-adjusted, 5-year ESS revision rates, 16% of surgeons had lower-than-expected performance, indicating a potential to improve quality of care. Future studies are needed to evaluate more surgeon-specific variables and validate a risk adjustment model to provide appropriate feedback for quality improvement.
Authors: Luke Rudmik; Zachary M Soler; Richard R Orlandi; Michael G Stewart; Neil Bhattacharyya; David W Kennedy; Timothy L Smith Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: David M Shahian; Xia He; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Paul A Kurlansky; Vinay Badhwar; Joseph C Cleveland; Frank L Fazzalari; Giovanni Filardo; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Anthony P Furnary; Mitchell J Magee; J Scott Rankin; Karl F Welke; Jane Han; Sean M O'Brien Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Todd T Kingdom; Jayakar V Nayak; Peter H Hwang; Richard R Orlandi Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Mahiben Maruthappu; Barnabas J Gilbert; Majd A El-Harasis; Myura Nagendran; Peter McCulloch; Antoine Duclos; Matthew J Carty Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Luke Rudmik; Yuan Xu; Edward Kukec; Mingfu Liu; Stafford Dean; Hude Quan Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Johannes A Govaert; Wouter A van Dijk; Marta Fiocco; Alexander C Scheffer; Lieke Gietelink; Michel W J M Wouters; Rob A E M Tollenaar Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Carl Philpott; Claire Hopkins; Sally Erskine; Nirmal Kumar; Alasdair Robertson; Amir Farboud; Shahzada Ahmed; Shahram Anari; Russell Cathcart; Hisham Khalil; Paul Jervis; Sean Carrie; Naveed Kara; Peter Prinsley; Robert Almeyda; Nicolas Mansell; Sankalp Sunkaraneni; Mahmoud Salam; Jaydip Ray; Jaan Panesaar; Jonathan Hobson; Allan Clark; Steve Morris Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrew J Thomas; Kristine A Smith; Christopher I Newberry; Brandon Cardon; Brock Davis; Zhining Ou; Angela P Presson; Jeremy D Meier; Jeremiah A Alt Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: N R Rowan; Z M Soler; J C Mace; M P Camilon; C Palmer; R H Jones; T L Smith; R J Schlosser Journal: Rhinology Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Jose L Mattos; Zachary M Soler; Rodney J Schlosser; Jess C Mace; Jeremiah A Alt; Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Spencer C Payne; Timothy L Smith; Daniel M Beswick Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 2.467