Author Interviews, Electronic Records, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research, UCSD / 09.11.2014
Surgical Quality Enhanced By Electronics Records Data
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Jamie Anderson MD MPH
Department of Surgery
University of California, San Diego
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Anderson: Risk adjustment is an important component of outcomes and quality analysis in surgical healthcare. To compare two hospitals fairly, you must take into account the “risk profile” of their patients. For example, a hospital operating on predominately very sick patients with multiple co-morbidities would be expected to have different outcomes to a hospital operating on relatively healthier patients with fewer co-morbidities. Somewhat counter-intuitively, it is possible that a hospital with a 10% mortality rate may be better than a hospital with 5% mortality rate when you adjust for the risk of the patient population.
Currently, the “gold standard” database to evaluate surgical outcomes is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), which includes a number of variables on each patient to perform risk adjustment. However, collecting these variables is costly and time consuming. There is also concern that risk adjusted benchmarking systems can be “gamed” because they include data elements that require subjective interpretation by hospital personnel.
With the widespread adoption of electronic health records, the aim of this study was to determine whether a number of objective data elements already used for patient care could perform as well as a traditional, full risk adjustment model that includes other provider-assessed and provider-recorded data elements.
We tested this hypothesis with an analysis of the NSQIP database from 2005-2010, comparing models that adjusted for all 66 pre-operative risk variables captured by NSQIP to models that only included 25 objective variables. These results suggest that rigorous risk adjusted surgical quality assessment can be performed relying solely on objective variables already captured in electronic health records.
(more…)
alResearch.com Interview with:
David C. Johnson, MD, MPH
Department of Urology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Medical Research: What are the main findings of the study?
Dr. Johnson: The first main finding from this study is that the likelihood of benign pathology after surgical removal of a renal mass suspected to be malignant based on pre-operative is inversely proportionate to size. This concept is well-established, however we systematically reviewed the literature for surgical series that published rates of benign pathology stratified by size and combined these rates to determine a single pooled estimate of benign pathology of pre-operatively suspicious renal masses for each size strata. Using benign pathology rates from US studies only, we found that 40.4% of masses < 1 cm, 20.9% of masses 1-2 cm, 19.6% of masses 2-3 cm, 17.2% of masses 3-4 cm, 9.2% of masses 4-7 cm, and 6.4% of masses >7 cm are benign.
The more novel finding from this study was the quantification of a previously unmeasured burden of over treatment in kidney cancer. By combining the above mentioned rates of benign pathology with epidemiological data, we estimated that the overall burden of benign renal masses surgically removed in the US to approach 6,000 per year in 2009. This represented an 82% increase over the course of a decade. Most importantly, we found an overwhelmingly disproportionate rise in the surgical treatment of renal masses in the smallest size categories – those which were most likely to be benign. We found a 233%, 189% and 128% increase in surgically removed benign renal lesions < 1 cm, 1-2 cm, and 2-3 cm, respectively from 2000 – 2009 in the US.
