Surgical Mortality in Europe

A fascinating paper just published in the Lancet, outlining rates of mortality up to 7 days post operatively across 28 European countries. Data on over 46000 patients was collected. Crude mortality ranged from 1.2% of all cases in Iceland to >20% in Latvia. When adjusted for confounding variables, e.g. smoking, COPD etc, there was a TEN FOLD difference between the best and worst performing systems.

"When compared with the UK, the recorded mortality rates for Poland, Latvia, Romania, and Ireland were higher even after adjustment for all identified confounding variables. This pattern could relate to cultural, demographic, socioeconomic, and political differences between nations, which might affect population health and health-care outcomes."

However there may be other explanations, including the size and volume of surgical units, availability and expertise of intensive care, staffing, training and use (or lack of use) of approaches known to reduce morbidity and mortality such as pre-operative briefings (Gawande and others), appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis and VTE prophylaxis. Regardless of the cause, yet again we see evidence of huge variation. Time to start learning why this exists. 
 

Risky Business

A report has just been published by the Royal College of Surgeons of England entitled “The Higher Risk General Surgical Patient: towards improved care for a forgotten group”. It is a very sobering examination of the outcome in non cardiac emergency surgery.

Higher risk non-cardiac general surgery is undertaken in every acute hospital. By way of comparison, the mortality for this group, which includes most major gastro-intestinal and vascular procedures, exceeds that for cardiac surgery by two to three fold and complication rates of 50% are not uncommon. There may be a lack of awareness of the level of risk. Among these patients, emergency surgery and unscheduled management of complications is common and this group of patients are one of the largest consumers of critical care resources. The health and financial costs are considerable. 

The most amazing statistic in this paper is the fact that “Complications occur in as many as 50% of patients undergoing some common procedures.”
My pet interest of variation in care and outcomes is addressed.

Review of 2008/9 hospital episode statistics (HES) data from Dr Foster reveal a greater than two-fold variation in relative risk of 30-day mortality (risk-adjusted) after non-elective lower GI procedures between trusts in the North West SHA (strategic health authority). It is known that the chance of a patient dying in a UK hospital is 10% higher if he or she is admitted at a weekend rather than during the week.

Anyone involved in ensuring good outcomes for surgical patients, or ensuring that hospital resources are used efficiently, (by reducing unnecessary complications) needs to read this.
 
 

Variation

Those who have become followers of Deming realise the significance of variation, and the need to reduce  unnecessary or harmful variation. I came across a great quote today,

" the only variation we see should be that due to the patient- there is no other reasons for care to vary"

Wow, Oh Wow

That was Muir Grays Twitter post on seeing this weeks BMJ. Apart from the papers referenced below (Reducing Variation March 24th), there are a number of other papers worth checking out. A report from the Netherlands again finds a marked variation in utilization of medical interventions. An editorial on variation in the NHS; a look at how to redevelop care for long term conditions, and a lot more.

Why such emphasis on variation? Surely the areas with low utilization will balance out the high users for a zero sum game. This is unlikely to be the case, there is mounting evidence, mainly from the US, but also from other countries, that outcomes are not affected by the amount of care given above a certain amount. Therefore there are huge opportunities for reducing waste, saving money, and a lot more good stuff.

Eliminate Variation, Part 2

A piece in the BMJ by John Wennberg summarizes much of the knowledge around variation in medical practice. He breaks unwanted variation into three categories, effective care, preference sensitive care and supply sensitive care.

• Effective care. This is care that is the right treatment for the vast majority of patients, and variation in this element relates to underuse, e.g. vaccination
• Preference Sensitive Care. This is care provided when there are more than one effective treatment, and choice of therapy should be dictated by patient preference; in fact, physician choice often determines this. Mastectomy rather than lumpectomy plus radiation for breast cancer for example. 
• Supply sensitive care. This is care that is dependent on the supply of services in a region. Roehmers law is one example of this; this states that in an insured popualtion, a hosoital bed is a filled bed. Dartmouth have found no corrleation between the amount of care received and outcomes, suggesting that there are areas with massive overuse of resources. Gawande in a brilliant article two years ago examined this discrepancy.

Also check out the NHS health Atlas. There are huge variations in care evident. Likely that this occurs everywhere.