Dataset Information

Effect of monitoring surgical outcomes using control charts to reduce major adverse events in patients: cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine the effect of introducing prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts and regular feedback on indicators to surgical teams on major adverse events in patients. DESIGN:National, parallel, cluster randomised trial embedding a difference-in-differences analysis. SETTING:40 surgical departments of hospitals across France. PARTICIPANTS:155?362 adults who underwent digestive tract surgery. 20 of the surgical departments were randomised to prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts with regular feedback on indicators (intervention group) and 20 to usual care only (control group). INTERVENTIONS:Prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts, provided in sets quarterly, with regular feedback on indicators (intervention hospitals). To facilitate implementation of the programme, study champion partnerships were established at each site, comprising a surgeon and another member of the surgical team (surgeon, anaesthetist, or nurse), and were trained to conduct team meetings, display posters in operating rooms, maintain a logbook, and devise an improvement plan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse events (inpatient death, intensive care stay, reoperation, and severe complications) within 30 days after surgery. Changes in surgical outcomes were compared before and after implementation of the programme between intervention and control hospitals, with adjustment for patient mix and clustering. RESULTS:75?047 patients were analysed in the intervention hospitals (37?579 before and 37?468 after programme implementation) versus 80?315 in the control hospitals (41?548 and 38?767). After introduction of the control chart, the absolute risk of a major adverse event was reduced by 0.9% (95% confidence interval 0.4% to 1.4%) in intervention compared with control hospitals, corresponding to 114 patients (70 to 280) who needed to receive the intervention to prevent one major adverse event. A significant decrease in major adverse events (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.96), patient death (0.84, 0.71 to 0.99), and intensive care stay (0.85, 0.76 to 0.94) was found in intervention compared with control hospitals. The same trend was observed for reoperation (0.91, 0.82 to 1.00), whereas severe complications remained unchanged (0.96, 0.87 to 1.07). Among the intervention hospitals, the effect size was proportional to the degree of control chart implementation witnessed. Highly compliant hospitals experienced a more important reduction in major adverse events (0.84, 0.77 to 0.92), patient death (0.78, 0.63 to 0.97), intensive care stay (0.76, 0.67 to 0.87), and reoperation (0.84, 0.74 to 0.96). CONCLUSIONS:The implementation of control charts with feedback on indicators to surgical teams was associated with concomitant reductions in major adverse events in patients. Understanding variations in surgical outcomes and how to provide safe surgery is imperative for improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02569450.

SUBMITTER: Duclos A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7610189 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of monitoring surgical outcomes using control charts to reduce major adverse events in patients: cluster randomised trial.

Duclos Antoine A Chollet François F Pascal Léa L Ormando Hector H Carty Matthew J MJ Polazzi Stéphanie S Lifante Jean-Christophe JC

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20201104

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effect of introducing prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts and regular feedback on indicators to surgical teams on major adverse events in patients.<h4>Design</h4>National, parallel, cluster randomised trial embedding a difference-in-differences analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>40 surgical departments of hospitals across France.<h4>Participants</h4>155 362 adults who underwent digestive tract surgery. 20 of the surgical departments were randomised to ...[more]

PMID: 33148601

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposePublished data regarding embolic protection device efficacy is mixed, and its use during carotid artery stent placement remains variable. We, therefore, examined the frequency of embolic protection device use and its association with outcomes after carotid artery stent placement using a national quality improvement data base.Materials and methodsPatients undergoing carotid artery stent placement with or without embolic protection devices were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data base. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as death, stroke, or myocardial infarction/arrhythmia) within 30 days. Propensity scoring was used to create 2 matching cohorts of patients using demographic and baseline variables.ResultsBetween 2011 and 2018, among 1200 adult patients undergoing carotid artery stent placement, 23.8% did not have embolic protection devices. There was no trend toward increased embolic protection device use with time. Patients without embolic protection device use received preoperative antiplatelets less frequently (90.6% versus 94.6%, P = .02), underwent more emergent carotid artery stent placement (7.2% versus 3.6%, P = .01), and had a higher incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.94) and stroke (OR = 3.31; 95% CI, 1.71-6.39). After compensating for baseline imbalances using propensity-matched cohorts (n = 261 for both), carotid artery stent placement without an embolic protection device remained associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular events (9.2% versus 4.2%; OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.10-4.80) and stroke (6.5% versus 1.5%; OR = 4.48; 95% CI, 1.49-13.49).ConclusionsLack of embolic protection device use during carotid artery stent placement is associated with a 4-fold increase in the likelihood of perioperative stroke. Nevertheless, nearly one-quarter of patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program underwent unprotected carotid artery stent placement. Efforts targeting improved embolic protection device use during carotid artery stent placement are warranted.

Project description:Background and objectivesMajor adverse kidney events, a composite of death, new kidney replacement therapy, or persistent kidney dysfunction, is a potential patient-centered outcome for clinical trials in sepsis-associated kidney injury. We sought to determine the incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days and validate this end point in pediatric sepsis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe conducted a retrospective observational study using the Pediatric Health Information Systems Plus database of patients >6 months to <18 years old with a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock; orders for bacterial blood culture, antibiotics, and at least one fluid bolus on hospital day 0/1; and known hospital disposition between January 2007 and December 2011. The primary outcome was incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days. Major adverse kidney events within 30 days were validated against all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, hospital length of stay, total hospital costs, hospital readmission within 30 days and 1 year, and lowest eGFR between 3 months and 1 year after discharge. We reported incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days with 95% confidence intervals using robust SEM and used multivariable logistic regression to test the association of major adverse kidney events within 30 days with hospital costs and mortality.ResultsOf 1685 admissions, incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days was 9.6% (95% confidence interval, 8.1% to 11.0%), including 4.5% (95% confidence interval, 3.5% to 5.4%) death, 1.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.1% to 2.3%) kidney replacement therapy, and 5.8% (95% confidence interval, 4.7% to 6.9%) persistent kidney dysfunction. Patients with versus without major adverse kidney events within 30 days had higher all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (28% versus 1%; P<0.001), higher total hospital costs ($61,188; interquartile range, $21,272-140,356 versus $28,107; interquartile range, $13,056-72,697; P<0.001), and higher proportion with eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 between 3 months and 1 year after discharge (19% versus 4%; P=0.001). Major adverse kidney events within 30 days was not associated with length of stay or readmissions.ConclusionsIn children with sepsis, major adverse kidney events within 30 days are common, feasible to measure, and a promising end point for future clinical trials.

Project description:IntroductionAdverse events (AE) in care are recognized as a leading cause of mortality and injury in patients. Improving patients' safety is difficult to achieve. Therefore, innovative research strategies are needed to identify errors in subgroups of patients and related severity of outcomes as well as reliably measured efficiency of reproducible strategies to improve safety. This trial aims to evaluate the impact of a combined multiprofessional education program on the rate of AE in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).Methods and analysisThis is a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with 3 clusters each containing 4 units. The study time period will be 20 months. The education program will be implemented within each cluster following a random sequence with a control period, a 4-month transition period and a post-educational intervention period. Eligibility criteria: for clusters: 6 NICUs from Ile-de-France and 6 NICUs from different regions in France; for patients: in-hospital during the study period (November 23, 2015 and November 2, 2017 [inclusion start dates varying by unit]) in one of the 12 NICUs; corrected gestational age ≤42 weeks upon admission; hospitalization period >2 days; and parents informed and not opposed to the use of their newborn's data. A routine occurrence reporting of medical errors and their consequence will take place during the entire study period. The intervention will combine an education to implement a standardized root cause analysis method, creation of bundles (insertion, daily goals, maintenance bundles) to prevent catheter-associated blood-stream infection and a poster to prevent extravasation injuries.OutcomeWe hypothesize a reduction from 60 (control) to 50 (intervention) AE/1000 patient-days. The primary outcome will be the rate of AE/1000 patient-days in the NICU.Trial registration numberNCT02598609, trial registered November 6, 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02598609.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by the regional ethic committee CPP Ile-de-France III (no 2014-A01751-46). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in the third trimester in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancies compared with usual care and the effect of this policy on maternal outcomes and obstetric interventions. DESIGN:Pragmatic, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomised trial. SETTING:60 midwifery practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:13 046 women aged 16 years or older with a low risk singleton pregnancy. INTERVENTIONS:60 midwifery practices offered usual care (serial fundal height measurements with clinically indicated ultrasonography). After 3, 7, and 10 months, a third of the practices were randomised to the intervention strategy. As well as receiving usual care, women in the intervention strategy were offered two routine biometry scans at 28-30 and 34-36 weeks' gestation. The same multidisciplinary protocol for detecting and managing fetal growth restriction was used in both strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: perinatal death, Apgar score <4, impaired consciousness, asphyxia, seizures, assisted ventilation, septicaemia, meningitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leucomalacia, or necrotising enterocolitis. Secondary outcomes were two composite measures of severe maternal morbidity, and spontaneous labour and birth. RESULTS:Between 1 February 2015 and 29 February 2016, 60 midwifery practices enrolled 13 520 women in mid-pregnancy (mean 22.8 (SD 2.4) weeks' gestation). 13 046 women (intervention n=7067, usual care n=5979) with data based on the national Dutch perinatal registry or hospital records were included in the analyses. Small for gestational age at birth was significantly more often detected in the intervention group than in the usual care group (179 of 556 (32%) v 78 of 407 (19%), P<0.001). The incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes was 1.7% (n=118) for the intervention strategy and 1.8% (n=106) for usual care. After adjustment for confounders, the difference between the groups was not significant (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.20). The intervention strategy showed a higher incidence of induction of labour (1.16, 1.04 to 1.30) and a lower incidence of augmentation of labour (0.78, 0.71 to 0.85). Maternal outcomes and other obstetric interventions did not differ between the strategies. CONCLUSION:In low risk pregnancies, routine ultrasonography in the third trimester along with clinically indicated ultrasonography was associated with higher antenatal detection of small for gestational age fetuses but not with a reduced incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes compared with usual care alone. The findings do not support routine ultrasonography in the third trimester for low risk pregnancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Register NTR4367.

Project description:BackgroundAbout 25% of patients experience adverse drug events (ADE) in primary care, but few events are reported by the patients themselves. One solution to improve the detection and management of ADEs in primary care is for patients to report them to their general practitioner. The study aimed to assess the effect of a booklet designed to improve communication and interaction between patients treated with anti-hypertensive drugs and general practitioners on the reporting of ADEs.MethodsA cluster randomized controlled cross-sectional stepped wedge open trial (five periods of 3 months) was conducted. A cluster was a group of general practitioners working in ambulatory offices in France. Adults consulting their general practitioner to initiate, modify, or renew an antihypertensive prescription were included. A booklet including information on cardiovascular risks, antihypertensive treatments, and ADE report forms was delivered by the general practitioner to the patient in the intervention group. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one ADE by the patient to his general practitioner during the three-month period after enrolment. Two clusters were randomised by sequence for a total of 8 to receive the intervention. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. A logistic mixed model with random intercept was used.ResultsSixty general practitioners included 1095 patients (median: 14 per general practitioner; range: 1-103). More patients reported at least one ADE to their general practitioner in the intervention condition compared to the control condition (aOR = 3.5, IC95 [1.2-10.1], p = 0.02). The modification and initiation of an antihypertensive treatment were also significantly associated with the reporting of ADEs (aOR = 4.4, CI95 [1.9-10.0], p < 0.001 and aOR = 11.0, CI95 [4.6-26.4], p < 0.001, respectively). The booklet delivery also improved patient satisfaction on general practitioner communication and high blood pressure management.ConclusionA booklet can improve patient self-reporting of ADEs to their general practitioners. Future research should assess whether it can improve general practitioner management of ADEs and patient's health status.Trial registrationTrial registry identifier NCT01610817 (2012/05/30).

Dataset Information

Effect of monitoring surgical outcomes using control charts to reduce major adverse events in patients: cluster randomised trial.

Publications

Effect of monitoring surgical outcomes using control charts to reduce major adverse events in patients: cluster randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets