Search

ObjectiveTo 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.DesignNational, parallel, cluster randomised trial embedding a difference-in-differences analysis.Setting40 surgical departments of hospitals across France.Participants155 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).InterventionsProspective 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 measuresThe 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.Results75 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).ConclusionsThe 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02569450.

Der Median- und der Oberbauchquerschnitt werden als operative Zugänge bei Pankreas- und Magenoperationen verwendet. Bislang ist jedoch ungeklärt, welche Schnittführung hinsichtlich der Lungenfunktion, des Wundschmerzempfindens und der Morbidität vorteilhafter ist. Zwischen 4/96 und 4/98 wurden alle Patienten, die wegen einer Pankreas- oder Magenerkrankung elektiv primär operiert wurden, in eine prospektiv-randomisierte Studie aufgenommen. Ziel der Studie war es, unter Einschluß der Parameter Wundheilung, Lungenfunktion (FVC und FEV 1) und Wundschmerzempfinden als Hauptzielkriterien den günstigsten Zugangsweg für eine Pankreas- bzw. Magenoperation zu bestimmen. Als Nebenzielkriterien wurden die Operationsdauer, der Temperaturverlauf, die Inzidenz pulmonaler Komplikationen, die Bewertung des kosmetischen Ergebnisses sowie die Dauer des Klinikaufenthaltes und die Kliniksletalität untersucht. Insgesamt wurden 94 Patienten in die Studie aufgenommen, von denen 52 am Pankreas (quer : median = 27:25) und 42 am Magen (quer : median=20:22) operiert wurden. Für die FVC und das FEV 1 konnten postoperativ bei allen Patienten signifikant erhöhte Werte nach einem Oberbauchquerschnitt gegenüber einem Medianschnitt gezeigt werden. Es bestand allerdings keine Korrelation zur Inzidenz postoperativer pulmonaler Komplikationen oder Wundkomplikationen. Die Patienten mit einem Oberbauchquerschnitt gaben im postoperativen Verlauf ein signifikant geringeres Wundschmerzempfinden an. Die Eröffnungszeit des Oberbauches war bei einer medianen Laparotomie signifikant vermindert. Für die Verschlußzeit und die gesamte Operationsdauer bestanden wie auch für die Inzidenz allgemeiner Komplikationen sowie die Kliniksletalität und die Dauer des Kliniksaufenthaltes keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den beiden operativen Zugängen. Die Bewertung des kosmetischen Ergebnisses zeigte bei einer signifikant kürzeren Wundlänge nach einer medianen Laparotomie ebenfalls keinen signifikanten Unterschied. Nach einem Oberbauchquerschnitt kommt es postoperativ zu einer besseren Lungenfunktion und zu einem niedrigeren Wundschmerzempfinden ohne Einfluß auf die Komplikationsrate., The median and the transverse laparotomy are both common incisions in operations of the pancreas and the stomach. The aim of this study was to determine which of the two incisions is best with respect to the pulmonary function, the incisional pain and the morbidity. In a series between 4/96 and 4/98 all patients undergoing major laparotomy for a disease of the pancreas or the stomach were enrolled in this study. The healing of the wound, the pulmonary function (FVC and FEV1), and the incisional pain were taken into account. Further parameters were the duration of the operation, the body temperature, the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, the cosmetic result of the wound healing, the duration of the hospitalisation, and the lethality. In total, 94 patients met the study criteria. 52 were operated for a disease of the pancreas (transverse:midline = 27:25) and 42 for a disease of the stomach (transverse:midline = 20:22). After a transverse incision compared to a midline incision the patients had a significantly higher FVC and FEV1. But there was no correlation to the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications or complications of the wound healing. The patients with a transverse incision suffered significantly lower incisional pain. In contrast, midline incisions took less time to perform. No differences were noticed with regard to the incidence of further postoperative complications, the letality and the duration of hospital stay. Neither were there any evident differences between the cosmetic results of the two ways of aproach. The respiratory function is better, and the sensation of pain lower after a transverse incision but there is no influence on the number of postoperative complications.