Search

Postoperative infections constitute more than half of all postoperative complications. Surveillance of these complications is primarily done through manual chart review, which is time consuming, expensive, and typically only covers 10% to 15% of all operations. Automated surveillance would permit the timely evaluation of and reporting of all operations.The goal of this study was to develop and validate parsimonious, interpretable models for conducting surveillance of postoperative infections using structured electronic health records data. This was a retrospective study using 30,639 unique operations from 5 major hospitals between 2013 and 2019. Structured electronic health records data were linked to postoperative outcomes data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Predictors from the electronic health records included diagnoses, procedures, and medications. Infectious complications included surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, sepsis, and pneumonia within 30 days of surgery. The knockoff filter, a penalized regression technique that controls type I error, was applied for variable selection. Models were validated in a chronological held-out dataset.Seven percent of patients experienced at least one type of postoperative infection. Models selected contained between 4 and 8 variables and achieved0.91 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve,81% specificity,87% sensitivity,99% negative predictive value, and 10% to 15% positive predictive value in a held-out test dataset.Surveillance and reporting of postoperative infection rates can be implemented for all operations with high accuracy using electronic health records data and simple linear regression models.

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways for patients undergoing anatomic lung resection have been reported at individual institutions. We hypothesized that an ERAS pathway can be successfully implemented across a large healthcare system including different types of hospital settings (academic, academic-affiliated, community).An expert panel with representation from each hospital within a healthcare system was convened to establish a thoracic ERAS pathway for patients undergoing anatomic lung resection and to develop tools and analytics to ensure consistent application. The protocol was translated into an order set and pathway within the electronic health record (EHR). Iterative implementation was performed with recording of the processes involved. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were recorded.Development and implementation of the protocol took 13 months from conception to rollout. Considerable change management was needed for consensus and incorporation into practice. Facilitators of change included peer accountability, incorporating ERAS care elements into the EHR, and conducting case reviews with timely feedback on protocol deviations. Barriers included institutional cultural differences, agreement in defining mindful deviation from the ERAS protocol, lack of access to specific coded data, and resource scarcity caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Support from the hospital system's executive leadership and institutional commitment to quality improvement helped overcome barriers and maintain momentum.Development and implementation of a health-system wide thoracic ERAS protocol for anatomic lung resections across a six-hospital health system requires a multidisciplinary team approach. Barriers can be overcome though multidisciplinary team engagement and executive leadership support.

Unplanned hospital admission after intended outpatient surgery is an undesirable outcome. We aimed to develop a prediction model that estimates a patient's risk of conversion from outpatient surgery to inpatient hospitalization.This was a retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, 2005 to 2018. Conversion from outpatient to inpatient surgery was defined as having outpatient surgery and1 day hospital stay. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System was developed using multiple logistic regression on a training dataset (2005-2016) and compared to a model using the 26 relevant variables in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System was validated using a testing dataset (2017-2018). Performance statistics and Hosmer-Lemeshow plots were compared. Two high-risk definitions were compared: (1) the maximum Youden index, and (2) the cohort above the tenth decile of risk on the Hosmer-Lemeshow plot. The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and accuracies were compared.In all, 2,822,379 patients were included; 3.6% of patients unexpectedly converted to inpatient. The 6-variable Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System model performed comparably to the 26-variable American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program model (c-indices = 0.818 vs. 0.823; Brier scores = 0.0308 vs 0.0306, respectively). The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System performed well on internal validation (c-index = 0.818, Brier score = 0.0341). The tenth decile of risk definition had higher specificity, positive predictive values, and accuracy than the maximum Youden index definition, while having lower sensitivity.The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System accurately predicted a patient's risk of unplanned outpatient-to-inpatient conversion. Patients at higher risk should be considered for inpatient surgery, while lower risk patients could safely undergo operations at ambulatory surgery centers.

Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) estimates patient's preoperative risk of 12 postoperative complications, yet little is known about associations between these probabilities- We sought to examine relationships between predicted probabilities.Risk of 12 postoperative complications was calculated using SURPAS and the 2012-2018 ACS-NSQIP database. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were computed to examine relationships between predicted outcomes. "High-risk" was predicted risk in the 10th decile.4,777,267 patients were included. 71.1% were not high risk, 10.7% were high risk for 1, and 18.2% were high risk for ≥2 complications. High mortality risk was associated with high risk for pulmonary (r = 0.94), cardiac (r = 0.98), renal (r = 0.93), and stroke (0.96) complications. Patients high-risk for ≥2 complications had the most comorbidities and actual adverse outcomes.High preoperative risk for certain postoperative complications had strong correlations. 18.2% of patients were high-risk for ≥2 complications and could be targeted for risk reduction interventions.

Considerable variability exists between surgeons' assessments of a patient's individual pre-operative surgical risk. Surgical risk calculators are not routinely used despite their validation. We sought to compare thoracic surgeons' prediction of patients' risk of postoperative adverse outcomes versus a surgical risk calculator, the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS). We developed vignettes from 30 randomly selected patients who underwent thoracic surgery in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Twelve thoracic surgeons estimated patients' preoperative risks of postoperative morbidity and mortality. These were compared to SURPAS estimates of the same vignettes. C-indices and Brier scores were calculated for the surgeons' and SURPAS estimates. Agreement between surgeon estimates was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Surgeons estimated higher morbidity risk compared to SURPAS for low-risk patients (ASA classes 1-2, 11.5% vs. 5.1%, p=

Present at the time of surgery (PATOS) is an important measure to collect in postoperative complication surveillance systems because it may affect a patient's risk of a subsequent complication and the estimation of postoperative complication rates attributed to the healthcare system. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP started collecting PATOS data for 8 postoperative complications in 2011, but no one has used these data to quantify how this may affect unadjusted and risk-adjusted postoperative complication rates.This study was a retrospective observational study of the ACS NSQIP database from 2012 to 2018. PATOS data were analyzed for the 8 postoperative complications of superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection; pneumonia; urinary tract infection; ventilator dependence; sepsis; and septic shock. Unadjusted postoperative complication rates were compared ignoring PATOS vs taking PATOS into account. Observed to expected ratios over time were also compared by calculating expected values using multiple logistic regression analyses with complication as the dependent variable and the 28 nonlaboratory preoperative variables in the ACS NSQIP database as the independent variables.In 5,777,108 patients, observed event rates for each outcome were reduced by between 6.1% (superficial surgical site infection) and 52.5% (sepsis) when PATOS was taken into account. The observed to expected ratios were similar each year for all outcomes, except for sepsis and septic shock in the early years.Taking PATOS into account is important for reporting unadjusted event rates. The effect varied by type of complication-lowest for superficial surgical site infection and highest for sepsis and septic shock. Taking PATOS into account was less important for risk-adjusted outcomes (observed to expected ratios), except for sepsis and septic shock.

Background The universal Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) prediction models for postoperative adverse outcomes have good accuracy for estimating risk in broad surgical populations and for surgical specialties. The accuracy in individual operations has not yet been assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System in predicting adverse outcomes for selected individual operations. Methods The SURPAS models were applied to the top 2 most frequent common procedural terminology codes in 9 surgical specialties and 5 additional common general surgical operations in the 2009 to 2018 database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). Goodness of fit statistics were estimated, including c-indices for discrimination, Hosmer-Lemeshow graphs and P values for calibration, overall observed versus expected event rates, and Brier scores. Results The total sample size was 2,020,172, which represented 29% of the 6.9 million operations in the ACS NSQIP database. Average c-indices across 12 outcomes were acceptable (≥0.70) for 13 (56.5%) of the 23 operations. Overall observed-to-expected rates were similar for mortality and overall morbidity across the 23 operations. Hosmer-Lemeshow graphs over quintiles of risk comparing observed-to-expected rates of mortality and overall morbidity were similar for 52% and 70% of operations, respectively. Model performance was better in less complex operations and those done in patients with lower preoperative risk. Conclusion SURPAS displayed accuracy in estimating postoperative adverse events for some of the 23 operations studied, but not all. In the procedures where SURPAS was not accurate, developing disease or operation-specific risk models might be appropriate.

Background The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) uses eight variables to accurately predict postoperative complications but has not been sufficiently studied in emergency surgery. We evaluated SURPAS in emergency surgery, comparing it to the Emergency Surgery Score (ESS). Methods SURPAS and ESS estimates of 30-day mortality and overall morbidity were calculated for emergency operations in the 2009–2018 ACS-NSQIP database and compared using observed-to-expected plots and rates, c-indices, and Brier scores. Cases with incomplete data were excluded. Results In 205,318 emergency patients, SURPAS underestimated (8.1%; 35.9%) while ESS overestimated (10.1%; 43.8%) observed mortality and morbidity (8.9%; 38.8%). Each showed good calibration on observed-to-expected plots. SURPAS had better c-indices (0.855 vs 0.848 mortality; 0.802 vs 0.755 morbidity), while the Brier score was better for ESS for mortality (0.0666 vs. 0.0684) and for SURPAS for morbidity (0.1772 vs. 0.1950). Conclusions SURPAS accurately predicted mortality and morbidity in emergency surgery using eight predictor variables.