Resource utilization and outcomes in emergency general surgery during the COVID19 pandemic: An observational cost analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Over the course of the COVID19 pandemic, global healthcare delivery has declined. Surgery is one of the most resource-intensive area of medicine; loss of surgical care has had untold health and economic consequences. Herein, we evaluate resource utilization, outcomes, and healthcare costs associated with unplanned surgery admissions during the height of the pandemic in 2020 versus the same period in 2019.Methods
Retrospective analysis on patients ≥18 years admitted from the emergency department to General & Digestive and Gastrointestinal Surgery Services between February and May 2019 and 2020 at our center; clinical outcomes and unadjusted and adjusted per-person healthcare costs were analyzed.Results
Consults and admissions to surgery declined between February and May 2020 by 37% and 19%, respectively, relative to the same period in 2019, with even greater relative decline during late March and early April. Time between onset of symptoms to diagnosis increased from 2±3 days 2019 to 5±22 days 2020 (P = 0.01). Overall hospital stay was two days less in 2020 (P = 0.19). Complications (Comprehensive Complication Index 10.3±23.7 2019 vs. 13.9±25.5 2020, P = 0.10) and mortality rates (3% vs. 4%, respectively, P = 0.58) did not vary. Mean unadjusted per-person costs for patients in the 2019 and 2020 cohorts were 5,886.72€±12,576.33€ and 5,287.62±7,220.16€, respectively (P = 0.43). Following multivariate analysis, costs remained similar (4,656.89€±390.53€ 2019 vs. 4,938.54±406.55€ 2020, P = 0.28).Conclusions
Healthcare delivery and spending for unplanned general surgery admissions declined considerably due to COVID19. These results provide a small yet relevant illustration of clinical and economic ramifications of this healthcare crisis.
SUBMITTER: Hessheimer AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8213049 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesMinimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVR) has numerous associated benefits. However, many studies fail to include greater-risk patients. We hypothesized that a minimally invasive approach in a representative cohort provides excellent outcomes with reduced resource utilization.MethodsMitral valve surgical records from 2011 to 2016 were paired with institutional financial records. Patients were stratified by approach and propensity-score matched to balance preoperative difference. The primary outcomes of interest were resource utilization including cost, discharge to a facility, and readmission.ResultsA total of 478 patients underwent mitral surgery (21% mini-MVR) and were balanced after matching (n = 74 per group), with 18% of patients having nondegenerative mitral disease. Outcomes were excellent with similar rates of major morbidity (9.5% mini-MVR vs 10.8% conventional, P = .78). Mini-MVR cases had lower rates of transfusion (11% vs 27%, P = .01) and shorter ventilator times (3.7 vs 6.0 hours, P < .0001). Mean total hospital cost was equivalent ($49,703 vs $54,970, P = .235) with mini-MVR having lower ancillary ($1645 vs $2652, P = .001) and blood costs ($383 vs $1058, P = .001). These savings were offset by longer surgical times (291 vs 234 minutes, P < .0001) with greater surgical ($7645 vs $7293, P = .0001) and implant costs ($1148 vs $748, P = .03). Rates of discharge to a facility (9.6% vs 16.2%) and readmission (9.6% vs 4.1%) were not statistically different.ConclusionsIn a real-world cohort, mini-MVR continues to demonstrate excellent results with a favorable resource utilization profile. Greater surgical and implant costs with mini-MVR are offset by decreased transfusions and ancillary needs leading to equivalent overall hospital cost.
| S-EPMC6100741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrailty has been recognized as an independent risk factor for inferior outcomes, but its effect on emergency general surgery (EGS) is understudied.ObjectiveThe purpose of the present study was to define the impact of frailty on risk-adjusted mortality, non-home discharge, and readmission following EGS operations.MethodsAdults undergoing appendectomy, cholecystectomy, small bowel resection, large bowel resection, repair of perforated ulcer, or laparotomy within two days of an urgent admission were identified in the 2016-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Frailty was defined using diagnosis codes corresponding to the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty indicator. Multivariable regression was used to study in-hospital mortality and non-home discharge by operation, and Kaplan Meier analysis to study freedom from unplanned readmission at up to 90-days follow-up.ResultsAmong 655,817 patients, 11.9% were considered frail. Frail patients most commonly underwent large bowel resection (37.3%) and cholecystectomy (29.2%). After adjustment, frail patients had higher mortality rates for all operations compared to nonfrail, including those most commonly performed (11.9% [95% CI 11.4-12.5%] vs 6.0% [95% CI 5.8-6.3%] for large bowel resection; 2.3% [95% CI 2.0-2.6%] vs 0.2% [95% CI 0.2-0.2%] for cholecystectomy). Adjusted non-home discharge rates were higher for frail compared to nonfrail patients following all operations, including large bowel resection (68.1% [95% CI 67.1-69.0%] vs 25.9% [95% CI 25.2-26.5%]) and cholecystectomy (33.7% [95% CI 32.7-34.7%] vs 2.9% [95% CI 2.8-3.0%]). Adjusted hospitalization costs were nearly twice as high for frail patients. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, frail patients had greater unplanned readmissions (log rank P<0.001), with 1 in 4 rehospitalized within 90 days.ConclusionsFrail patients have inferior clinical outcomes and greater resource use following EGS, with the greatest absolute differences following complex operations. Simple frailty assessments may inform expectations, identify patients at risk of poor outcomes, and guide the need for more intensive postoperative care.
| S-EPMC8301636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) across pandemic waves.MethodsThis observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 EDs participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, ED revisits and readmissions. Logistic regression modeling assessed the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes.ResultsWe enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the ED. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-8.9), and invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.7) in the second wave compared to the first. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.9) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1).InterpretationIn patients presenting to cute care facilities, we observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and less use of experimental therapies in the second wave. We observed increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. Substantial reductions in mechanical ventilation were not associated with increasing mortality. Advances in treatment strategies created health system efficiencies without compromising patient outcomes.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.
| S-EPMC8972682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the impact of multimorbidity on long-term outcomes for older emergency general surgery patients.Study designMedicare beneficiaries, age 65 and older, who underwent operative management of an emergency general surgery condition were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid claims data. Patients were classified as multimorbid based on the presence of a Qualifying Comorbidity Set (a specific combination of comorbid conditions known to be associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality in the general surgery setting) and compared with those without multimorbidity. Risk-adjusted outcomes through 180 days after discharge from index hospitalization were calculated using linear and logistic regressions.ResultsOf 174,891 included patients, 45.5% were identified as multimorbid. Multimorbid patients had higher rates of mortality during index hospitalization (5.9% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 3.05, p < 0.001) and through 6 months (17.1% vs 3.4%, OR 2.33, p < 0.001) after discharge. Multimorbid patients experienced higher rates of readmission at 1 month (22.9% vs 11.4%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) and 6 months (38.2% vs 21.2%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) after discharge, lower rates of discharge to home (42.5% vs 74.2%, OR 0.52, p < 0.001), higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation/nursing facility (28.3% vs 11.3%, OR 1.62, p < 0.001), greater than double the use of home oxygen, walker, wheelchair, bedside commode, and hospital bed (p < 0.001), longer length of index hospitalization (1.33 additional in-patient days, p < 0.001), and higher costs through 6 months ($5,162 additional, p < 0.001).ConclusionsOlder, multimorbid patients experience worse outcomes, including survival and independent function, after emergency general surgery than nonmultimorbid patients through 6 months after discharge from index hospitalization. This information is important for setting recovery expectations for high-risk patients to improve shared decision-making.
| S-EPMC9583235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected the health-care system unpredictably. Restrictions and precautions have had a significant impact on the volume and nature of admissions in emergency services. In this study, we hypothesized that the pandemic would result in a change in the number of emergencies admitted to the general surgery inpatient service and a worse patient outcome compared to the previous year.MethodsA retrospective analysis of emergency general surgical admissions during the first 6 months of the pandemic and the same period in 2019 was conducted. Demographics, laboratory assessments, diagnosis, treatment strategies, and postoperative out-comes were analyzed.Results761 patients were admitted to the general surgery service during two 6-month periods (392 vs. 369, respectively). This represented a 5.9% reduction in admissions. However, in the first 2 months of the pandemic, the number of emergency general surgical admissions decreased by 37.1% and 43.7%, respectively. Comparison of periods demonstrated no significant differences in demograph-ics, laboratory values, incidence of emergencies, treatment strategies, and hospital stay. Acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and bowel obstruction were the three most common surgical emergencies in the pandemic. However, there was no significant difference in outcomes between the periods when each surgical emergency was evaluated separately.ConclusionPandemic appears to affect general surgical admissions with a fluctuating pattern, an increasing trend following a sig-nificant 2-month decrease. These findings suggest that patients presented with a delayed presentation; however, contrary to concerns, there was no difference in patient outcomes between the two periods. This study provides a perspective in management strategies for surgical emergencies in such unusual conditions.
| S-EPMC10493828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent literature reports a decrease in healthcare-seeking behaviours by adults during the Covid-19 pandemic. Given that emergency general surgery (GS) conditions are often associated with high morbidity and mortality if left untreated, the objective of this study was to describe and quantify the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on rates of emergency department (ED) utilization and hospital admission due to GS conditions.MethodsThis cohort study involved the analysis of an institutional database and retrospective chart review. We identified adult patients presenting to the ED in a network of three teaching hospitals in Montreal, Canada during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic (March13-May13, 2020) and a control pre-pandemic period (March13-May13, 2019). Patients with GS conditions were included in the analysis. ED utilization rates, admission rates and 30-day outcomes were compared between the two periods using multivariate regression analysis.ResultsDuring the pandemic period, 258 patients presented to ED with a GS diagnosis compared to 351 patients pre-pandemically (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 0.75; p < 0.001). Rate of hospital admission during the pandemic was also significantly lower (aRR = 0.77, p < 0.001). Patients had a significantly shorter ED stay during the pandemic (adjusted mean difference 5.0 h; p < 0.001). Rates of operative management during the pandemic were preserved compared to the pre-pandemic period. There were no differences in 30-day complications (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.46; p = 0.07), ED revisits (aOR 1.10; p = 0.66) and (re)admissions (aOR 1.42; p = 0.22) between the two periods.ConclusionThere was a decrease in rates of ED utilization and hospital admissions due to GS conditions during the first wave of the Covid -19 pandemic; however, rates of operative management, complications and healthcare reutilization were unchanged. Although our findings are not generalizable to patients who did not seek healthcare, it was possible to successfully uphold institutional standards of care once patients presented to the ED.
| S-EPMC8722748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTransferred emergency general surgery (EGS) patients are a vulnerable, high acuity population. The outcomes of and health care utilization among transferred (TRAN) as compared to directly admitted (DA) patients have been studied primarily using single institution or hospital system data which limits generalizability. We evaluated these outcomes among EGS patients using a national database.MethodsWe identified encounters of patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of EGS as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in the 2008-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Multivariable regression analyses determined if transfer status independently predicted in-hospital mortality (logistic regression) and morbidity (presence of any complication among those who survived to discharge; logistic regression), cost (log-linear regression), and duration of stay (among those who survived to discharge; log-linear regression) accounting for the NIS sampling design.ResultsWe identified 274,145 TRAN (57,885 unweighted) and 10,456,100 DA (2,187,132 unweighted) encounters. On univariate analysis, TRAN patients were more likely to have greater comorbidity scores, have Medicare insurance, and reside in an area with a lesser median household income compared to DA patients (p<0.0001). Mortality was greater in the TRAN vs DA groups (4.4% vs 1.6%; p<0.0001). Morbidity (presence of any complication) was also greater among TRAN patients (38.8% vs 26.1%; p<0.0001). Morbidity among TRAN patients was primarily due to urinary- (13.7%), gastrointestinal- (12.9%), and pulmonary-related (13.3%) complications. Median duration of hospital stay was 4.3 days for TRAN vs 3.0 days for DA (p<0.0001) patients. Median cost was greater for TRAN patients ($8,935 vs $7,167; p<0.0001). Regression analyses determined that after adjustment, TRAN patients had statistically significantly greater mortality, morbidity, and cost as well as longer durations of stay.ConclusionsEGS patients who are transferred experience increased in-hospital morbidity and mortality as well as increased durations of stay and cost. As the population and age of patients diagnosed with EGS conditions increase while the EGS workforce decreases, the need for inter-hospital transfers will increase. Identifying risk factors associated with worse outcomes among transferred patients can inform the design of initiatives in performance improvement and direct the finite resources available to this vulnerable patient population.
| S-EPMC7390656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionERAS pathway has been proposed as the standard of care in elective abdominal surgery. Guidelines on ERAS in emergency surgery have been recently published; however, few evidences are still available in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol in a large cohort of patients undergoing emergency surgery and to identify possible factors impacting postoperative protocol compliance.MethodsThis is a prospective multicenter observational study including patients who underwent major emergency general surgery for either intra-abdominal infection or intestinal obstruction. The primary endpoint of the study is the adherence to ERAS postoperative protocol. Secondary endpoints are 30-day mortality and morbidity rates, and length of hospital stay.ResultsA total of 589 patients were enrolled in the study, 256 (43.5%) of them underwent intestinal resection with anastomosis. Major complications occurred in 92 (15.6%) patients and 30-day mortality was 6.3%. Median adherence occurred on postoperative day (POD) 1 for naso-gastric tube removal, on POD 2 for mobilization and urinary catheter removal, and on POD 3 for oral intake and i.v. fluid suspension. Laparoscopy was significantly associated with adherence to postoperative protocol, whereas operative fluid infusion > 12 mL/Kg/h, preoperative hyperglycemia, presence of a drain, duration of surgery and major complications showed a negative association.ConclusionsThe present study supports that an enhanced recovery protocol in emergency surgery is feasible and safe. Laparoscopy was associated with an earlier recovery, whereas preoperative hyperglycemia, fluid overload, and abdominal drain were associated with a delayed recovery.
| S-EPMC10079158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo present a comprehensive real-world micro-costing analysis of bariatric surgery.MethodsPatients were included if they underwent primary bariatric surgery (gastric banding [GB], gastric bypass [GBP] and sleeve gastrectomy [SG]) between 2013 and 2019. Costs were disaggregated into cost items and average-per-patient costs from the Australian healthcare systems perspective were expressed in constant 2019 Australian dollars for the entire cohort and subgroup analysis. Annual population-based costs were calculated to capture longitudinal trends. A generalized linear model (GLM) predicted the overall bariatric-related costs.ResultsN = 240 publicly funded patients were included, with the waitlist times of ≤ 10.7 years. The mean direct costs were $11,269. The operating theatre constituted the largest component of bariatric-related costs, followed by medical supplies, salaries, critical care use, and labour on-costs. Average cost for SG ($12,632) and GBP ($15,041) was higher than that for GB ($10,049). Operating theatre accounted for the largest component for SG/GBP costs, whilst medical supplies were the largest for GB. We observed an increase in SG and a decrease in GB procedures over time. Correspondingly, the main cost driver changed from medical supplies in 2014-2015 for GB procedures to operating theatre for SG thereafter. GLM model estimates of bariatric average cost ranged from $7,580 to $36,633.ConclusionsWe presented the first detailed characterization of the scale, disaggregated profile and determinants of bariatric-related costs, and examined the evolution of resource utilization patterns and costs, reflecting the shift in the Australian bariatric landscape over time. Understanding these patterns and forecasting of future changes are critical for efficient resource allocation.
| S-EPMC8586836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOptimal methods to assess resource utilization in congenital heart surgery remain unclear. We compared traditional cost-to-charge ratio methods with newer standardized cost methods that aim to more directly assess resources consumed.MethodsClinical data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were linked with resource use data from the Pediatric Health Information Systems Database (2010 to 2015). Standardized cost methods specific to the congenital heart surgery population were developed and compared with cost-to-charge ratio methods. Resource use in the overall population and variability across hospitals were described using hierarchical mixed effect models adjusting for case-mix.ResultsOverall, 43 hospitals (65,331 patients) were included. There were minimal population-level differences in the distribution of resource use as estimated by the two methods. At the hospital level, there was less apparent variability in resource use across centers with the standardized cost vs cost-to-charge ratio method, overall (coefficient of variation 20% vs 25%) and across complexity (The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery [STAT]) categories. When hospitals were categorized into tertiles by resource use, 33% changed classification depending on which resource use method was used (26% by one tertile and 7% by two tertiles).ConclusionsIn this first evaluation of standardized cost methodology in the congenital heart population, we found minimal differences vs traditional methods at the population level. At the hospital level, the magnitude of variation in resource use was less with standardized cost methods, and approximately one third of centers changed resource use categories depending on the methodology used. Because of these differences, care should be taken in future studies and in benchmarking and reporting efforts in selecting optimal methodology.
| S-EPMC8237745 | biostudies-literature