INTRODUCTION: We examine the influence of variations in provision of cardiac surgery in the UK at hospital level on patient outcomes and also to assess whether there is an inequality of access and delivery of healthcare. Cardiothoracic surgery has pioneered the reporting of surgeon-specific outcomes, which other specialties have followed. We set out to identify factors other than the individual surgeon, which can affect outcomes and enable other surgical specialties to adopt a similar model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patient and hospital level factors between 2013 and 2016 from 16 cardiac surgical units in the UK were analysed through the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland and the Royal College of Surgeons Research Collaborative. Patient demographic data, risks factors, postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality, as well as hospital-level factors such as number of beds and operating theatres, were collected. Correlation between outcome measures was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Associations between hospital-level factors and outcomes were assessed using univariable and multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 50,871 patients (60.5% of UK caseload), 25% were older than 75 years and 29% were female. There was considerable variation between units in patient comorbidities, bed distribution and staffing. All hospitals had dedicated cardiothoracic intensive care beds and consultants. Median survival was 97.9% (range 96.3-98.6%). Postoperative complications included re-sternotomy for bleeding (median 4.8%; range 3.5-6.9%) and mediastinitis (0.4%; 0.1-1.0%), transient ischaemic attack/cerebrovascular accident (1.7%; range 0.3-3.0%), haemofiltration (3.7%; range 0.8-6.8%), intra-aortic balloon pump use (3.3%; range 0.4-7.4%), tracheostomy (1.6%; range 1.3-2.6%) and laparotomy (0.3%; range 0.2-0.6%). There was variation in outcomes between hospitals. Univariable analysis showed a small number of positive associations between hospital-level factors and outcomes but none remained significant in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: Variations among hospital level factors exists in both delivery of, and outcomes, following cardiac surgery in the UK. However, there was no clear association between these factors and patient outcomes. This negative finding could be explained by differences in outcome definition, differences in risk factors between centres that are not captured by standard risk stratification scores or individual surgeon/team performance.
INTRODUCTION: We examine the influence of variations in provision of cardiac surgery in the UK at hospital level on patient outcomes and also to assess whether there is an inequality of access and delivery of healthcare. Cardiothoracic surgery has pioneered the reporting of surgeon-specific outcomes, which other specialties have followed. We set out to identify factors other than the individual surgeon, which can affect outcomes and enable other surgical specialties to adopt a similar model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patient and hospital level factors between 2013 and 2016 from 16 cardiac surgical units in the UK were analysed through the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland and the Royal College of Surgeons Research Collaborative. Patient demographic data, risks factors, postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality, as well as hospital-level factors such as number of beds and operating theatres, were collected. Correlation between outcome measures was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Associations between hospital-level factors and outcomes were assessed using univariable and multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 50,871 patients (60.5% of UK caseload), 25% were older than 75 years and 29% were female. There was considerable variation between units in patient comorbidities, bed distribution and staffing. All hospitals had dedicated cardiothoracic intensive care beds and consultants. Median survival was 97.9% (range 96.3-98.6%). Postoperative complications included re-sternotomy for bleeding (median 4.8%; range 3.5-6.9%) and mediastinitis (0.4%; 0.1-1.0%), transient ischaemic attack/cerebrovascular accident (1.7%; range 0.3-3.0%), haemofiltration (3.7%; range 0.8-6.8%), intra-aortic balloon pump use (3.3%; range 0.4-7.4%), tracheostomy (1.6%; range 1.3-2.6%) and laparotomy (0.3%; range 0.2-0.6%). There was variation in outcomes between hospitals. Univariable analysis showed a small number of positive associations between hospital-level factors and outcomes but none remained significant in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: Variations among hospital level factors exists in both delivery of, and outcomes, following cardiac surgery in the UK. However, there was no clear association between these factors and patient outcomes. This negative finding could be explained by differences in outcome definition, differences in risk factors between centres that are not captured by standard risk stratification scores or individual surgeon/team performance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac Surgery; Outcomes; Perioperative care
Authors: James S Gammie; Sean M O'Brien; Bartley P Griffith; T Bruce Ferguson; Eric D Peterson Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-02-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ben Bridgewater; Antony D Grayson; Nicholas Brooks; Geir Grotte; Brian M Fabri; John Au; Tim Hooper; Mark Jones; Bruce Keogh Journal: Heart Date: 2007-01-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Donald S Likosky; Amelia S Wallace; Richard L Prager; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Min Zhang; Steven D Harrington; Paramita Saha-Chaudhuri; Patricia F Theurer; Astrid Fishstrom; Rachel S Dokholyan; David M Shahian; J Scott Rankin Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Benedict Morath; Andreas D Meid; Johannes Rickmann; Jasmin Soethoff; Markus Verch; Matthias Karck; Marcin Zaradzki Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2021-09-26 Impact factor: 5.606