Search

Background Although endoscopy is recommended at 1 year after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection to detect locally recurrent CRC, earlier work at our Veterans Affairs (VA) facility demonstrated that 35% of patients achieve this metric. Study Design The interdisciplinary team used quality improvement methods to standardize processes and implement a gastroenterology-managed virtual surveillance clinic. The intervention clinic was implemented in August 2014. Veterans who underwent resection for stage I to III CRC at a single VA facility from January 2010 to December 2017 were included, with those undergoing resection between January 2010 and July 2014 considered pre-intervention and those undergoing resection between August 2014 and December 2017 considered post-intervention. The primary endpoint was the proportion of eligible patients for whom endoscopy was completed within 1 year of resection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who completed endoscopy within 18 months of resection or at any time post-resection and time to surveillance endoscopy. Results A total of 186 patients underwent resection for stage I to III CRC from 2010 to 2017; of these, 160 (86%) were eligible for endoscopy at 1-year post-resection (98 pre-intervention and 62 post-intervention). In the pre-intervention period, 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) underwent surveillance endoscopy within 1 year vs 31 of 62 (50.0%) post-intervention (p = 0.031). When evaluated at 18 months after resection, 56 of 98 patients (57.1%) in the pre-intervention group vs 52 of 62 (83.9%) in the post-intervention group underwent surveillance endoscopy (p = 0.001). Median time from resection to endoscopy decreased during the study period, from 1.19 years pre-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.74 years) to 1.0 years post-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.09 years) (p = 0.006). Conclusions Implementation of a virtual surveillance clinic with standardized processes was associated with increased guideline-concordant endoscopic surveillance after CRC resection.

Earlier work suggested that telephone follow-up could be used in lieu of in-person follow-up after surgery, saving patients time and travel and maximizing use of scarce surgeon and facility resources. We report our experience implementing and evaluating telephone postoperative follow-up within an integrated health system.We conducted a pre-post evaluation of a general surgery telephone postoperative clinic at a tertiary care Veterans Affairs facility from April 2015 to February 2016. Patients were offered a telephone postoperative visit from a surgical provider in lieu of an in-person clinic visit. Telephone clinic operating procedures were refined through iterative cycles of change using the Plan-Do-Study-Act method. The study period included 2 months pre-intervention and 9 months post-intervention. The primary end point was mean number of clinic visits per eligible patient before and after telephone clinic implementation. Secondary outcomes were rates of emergency department visits and readmissions before vs after telephone clinic implementation and complication rates in patients scheduled for telephone vs in-person postoperative care.During the study period, 200 patients underwent eligible operations, 29 pre-intervention and 171 post-intervention. In-person clinic use decreased from 0.83 visits per eligible patient pre-intervention to 0.40 after implementation of the telephone clinic (p0.01). There was no difference in rates of emergency department presentation or readmission in eligible patients (0.17 visits/patient pre-intervention vs 0.12 post-intervention; p = 0.36). Complication rates were comparable for eligible patients who were and were not scheduled for telephone care (6% vs 8%; p = 0.31).Telephone postoperative care can be used in select populations as a triage tool to identify patients who require in-person care and decrease overall in-person clinic use.

Background Accurately documenting patient comorbidities and complications improves case-mix representation, coding accuracy, and risk-adjusted mortality estimates for benchmarking. We hypothesized that a progress note template containing comorbidities and complications would improve documentation and teach residents to correctly document comorbidities and complications. Study design Surgical residents and patients on three inpatient services were followed for a 1-year prospective cohort study. After a 6-month baseline period, a progress note template was developed and implemented for 6 months, and administrative data were retrieved. Residents were given three case examinations assessing documentation knowledge pre- and postintervention, and a satisfaction survey. Demographics, Charlson comorbidity score, ICD-9 codes, template-specific ICD-9 codes, All Patient Refined (APR)-DRG patient severity, DRG relative weight, predicted mortality (University Healthcare Consortium), pre- and postexam scores, and resident satisfaction were collected. Results No difference in age, gender, race, or Charlson comorbidity score existed between pre- and postintervention patient groups. The length of stay decreased from 5.5 days to 4.8 days (p = 0.013). In the intervention group, total ICD-9 codes, template-specific ICD-9 codes, APR-DRG, DRG weight, and UHC predicted mortality had significant increases. Residents exposed to the progress note template improved their knowledge scores from 52% to 63% (p Conclusions A progress note template improves documentation of comorbidities and complications, APR-DRG patient severity for benchmarking, and case-mix index, and increases patient-specific predicted mortality. The progress note template also improves surgical residents' documentation knowledge and satisfaction.

Accurately documenting patient comorbidities and complications improves case-mix representation, coding accuracy, and risk-adjusted mortality estimates for benchmarking. We hypothesized that a progress note template containing comorbidities and complications would improve documentation and teach residents to correctly document comorbidities and complications.Surgical residents and patients on three inpatient services were followed for a 1-year prospective cohort study. After a 6-month baseline period, a progress note template was developed and implemented for 6 months, and administrative data were retrieved. Residents were given three case examinations assessing documentation knowledge pre- and postintervention, and a satisfaction survey. Demographics, Charlson comorbidity score, ICD-9 codes, template-specific ICD-9 codes, All Patient Refined (APR)-DRG patient severity, DRG relative weight, predicted mortality (University Healthcare Consortium), pre- and postexam scores, and resident satisfaction were collected.No difference in age, gender, race, or Charlson comorbidity score existed between pre- and postintervention patient groups. The length of stay decreased from 5.5 days to 4.8 days (p = 0.013). In the intervention group, total ICD-9 codes, template-specific ICD-9 codes, APR-DRG, DRG weight, and UHC predicted mortality had significant increases. Residents exposed to the progress note template improved their knowledge scores from 52% to 63% (p0.001), and 73% agreed that the progress note template was an improvement over handwritten notes. Residents not exposed to the progress note template did not improve their scores.A progress note template improves documentation of comorbidities and complications, APR-DRG patient severity for benchmarking, and case-mix index, and increases patient-specific predicted mortality. The progress note template also improves surgical residents' documentation knowledge and satisfaction.