T R Palser1,2, A P Navarro3, S Swift4, I J Beckingham3. 1. Department of Upper Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust , Nottingham , UK. 2. SAPPHIRE, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester , Leicester , UK. 3. Department of Hepatico-Pancreatico-Biliary Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre , Nottingham , UK. 4. Methods Analytics Ltd, Sheffield Digital Campus , Sheffield , UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite an increasing emphasis on data-driven quality improvement, few validated quality indicators for emergency surgical services have been published. The aims of this study therefore were: 1) to investigate whether the acute cholecystectomy rate is a valid process indicator; and 2) to use this rate to examine variation in the provision of acute cholecystectomy in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surgical Workload and Outcomes Research Database (SWORD), derived from the Hospital Episode Statistics database, was interrogated for the 2012-2017 financial years. All adult patients admitted with acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystitis or biliary colic to hospitals in England were included and the acute cholecystectomy rate in each one examined. RESULTS: A total of 328,789 patients were included, of whom 42,642 (12.9%) underwent an acute cholecystectomy. The acute cholecystectomy rate varied significantly between hospitals, with the overall rate ranging from 1.2% to 36.5%. This variation was consistent across all disease groupings and time periods, and was independent of the annual number of procedures performed by each NHS trust. In 41 (29.9%) trusts, fewer than one in ten patients with acute gallbladder disease underwent cholecystectomy within two weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The acute cholecystectomy rate is easily measurable using routine administrative datasets, modifiable by local services and has a strong evidence base linking it to patient outcomes. We therefore advocate that it is an ideal process indicator that should be used in quality monitoring and improvement. Using it, we identified significant variation in the quality of care for acute biliary disease in England.
INTRODUCTION: Despite an increasing emphasis on data-driven quality improvement, few validated quality indicators for emergency surgical services have been published. The aims of this study therefore were: 1) to investigate whether the acute cholecystectomy rate is a valid process indicator; and 2) to use this rate to examine variation in the provision of acute cholecystectomy in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Surgical Workload and Outcomes Research Database (SWORD), derived from the Hospital Episode Statistics database, was interrogated for the 2012-2017 financial years. All adult patients admitted with acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystitis or biliary colic to hospitals in England were included and the acute cholecystectomy rate in each one examined. RESULTS: A total of 328,789 patients were included, of whom 42,642 (12.9%) underwent an acute cholecystectomy. The acute cholecystectomy rate varied significantly between hospitals, with the overall rate ranging from 1.2% to 36.5%. This variation was consistent across all disease groupings and time periods, and was independent of the annual number of procedures performed by each NHS trust. In 41 (29.9%) trusts, fewer than one in ten patients with acute gallbladder disease underwent cholecystectomy within two weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The acute cholecystectomy rate is easily measurable using routine administrative datasets, modifiable by local services and has a strong evidence base linking it to patient outcomes. We therefore advocate that it is an ideal process indicator that should be used in quality monitoring and improvement. Using it, we identified significant variation in the quality of care for acute biliary disease in England.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sidhartha Sinha; David Hofman; David L Stoker; Peter J Friend; Jan D Poloniecki; Matt M Thompson; Peter J E Holt Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mark C van Baal; Marc G Besselink; Olaf J Bakker; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Alexander F Schaapherder; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Hein G Gooszen; Bert van Ramshorst; Djamila Boerma Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael A Glaysher; Peter May-Miller; Nicholas C Carter; Gijs van Boxel; Philip H Pucher; Benjamin C Knight; Stuart J Mercer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 3.453