Search

Keywords: getting it right first time; national consultant information; programme; quality improvement; rectal cancer EN getting it right first time national consultant information programme quality improvement rectal cancer 1332 1335 4 07/25/23 20230701 NES 230701 Colorectal surgery has emerged as a subspeciality of general surgery. Twenty five per cent of all resections between April 2017 and March 2020 were undertaken by 89 (9%) rectal cancer resection consultants; and 50% of all resections were undertaken by 230 (23%) consultants. In 2019, the median number of rectal resections performed by a colorectal surgeon in England was five, with 44% of surgeons failing to meet the NICE guidelines of more than five rectal resections per year. It is becoming common in many units to provide dual-consultant operating for rectal cancer surgery; this facilitates the transfer and maintenance of technical skills and can also reduce surgeon fatigue during prolonged operations. [Extracted from the article]

Background: There exist wide variations in healthcare quality within the National Health Service (NHS). A shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) has been implicated as premature discharge, that may in turn lead to adverse consequences. We tested the hypothesis that a short LOS might be associated with increased risk of readmissions within 28 days of hospital discharge and also post-discharge mortality.Methods: We conducted a single-centred study of 32 270 (46.1% men) consecutive alive-discharge episodes (mean age = 64.0 years, standard deviation = 20.5, range = 18-107 years), collected between 01/04/2017 and 31/03/2019. Associations of LOS tertiles (middle tertile as a reference) with readmissions and mortality were assessed using observed/expected ratios, and logistic and Cox regressions to estimate odds (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) (adjusted for age, sex, patients' severity of underlying health status and index admissions), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: The observed numbers of readmissions within 28 days of hospital discharge or post-discharge mortality were lower than expected (observed: expected ratio < 1) in patients in the bottom tertile (<1.2 days) and middle tertile (1.2-4.3 days) of LOS, whilst higher than expected (observed: expected ratio > 1) in patients in the top tertile (>4.3 days), amongst all ages. Patients in the top tertile of LOS had increased risks for one readmission: OR = 2.32 (95% CI = 1.86-2.88) or ≥2 readmissions: OR = 6.17 (95% CI = 5.11-7.45), death within 30 days: OR = 2.87 (95% CI = 2.34-3.51), and within six months of discharge: OR = 2.52 (95% CI = 2.23-2.85), and death over a two-year period: HR = 2.25 (95% CI = 2.05-2.47). The LOS explained 7.4% and 15.9% of the total variance (r2) in one readmission and ≥2 readmissions, and 9.1% and 10.0% of the total variance in mortality with 30 days and within six months of hospital discharge, respectively. Within the bottom, middle and top tertiles of the initial LOS, the median duration from hospital discharge to death progressively shortened from 136, 126 to 80 days, whilst LOS during readmission lengthened from 0.4, 0.9 to 2.8 days, respectively.Conclusion: Short LOS in hospital was associated with favourable post-discharge outcomes such as early readmission and mortality, and with a delay in time interval from discharge to death and shorter LOS in hospital during readmission. These findings indicate that timely discharge from our hospital meets the aims of the NHS-generated national improvement programme, Getting It Right First Time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Getting It Right First Time programme was set up to reduce unwarranted variation in healthcare practice and outcomes in England. The aim of this study was to investigate early changes in practice in urology based on the recommendations made. Subjects and methods: Data were extracted from the Hospital Episodes Statistics database from January 2014 to December 2019. The dates of visits by members of the Getting It Right First Time team were taken as the intervention point. Interrupted time series analysis was used to identify trends pre and post intervention. Results: Following the Getting It Right First Time visits, there was evidence of a significant increase in the proportion of patients seen as day cases for transurethral resection of bladder tumour and decreased use of stents and increased use of ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on first presentation with ureteric stones. However, there was no significant change in waiting times for surgery to treat patients who had an emergency presentation with urinary retention. Conclusions: There is evidence that the recommendations made are already having an impact on clinical practice. The reasons why some recommendations appear to be harder to implement requires further investigation. Level of evidence: 2b [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme has set targets to achieve 85% touchtime utilisation by 2024/25. Touchtime utilisation is a measure of theatre productivity, defined as the time from the start of anaesthesia to the time a patient leaves the theatre for all cases on a defined theatre list as a percentage of total available theatre time. No published evidence examines touchtime utilisation as a measure of theatre efficiency and its correlation with surgical cutting time. This study aims to determine if there is a statistical relationship between touchtime utilisation and surgical cutting time, and whether the use of touchtime utilisation is sufficient to inform about surgical productivity. Methods A retrospective analysis of two orthopaedic theatres spanning 100 days at both a major trauma centre and an elective hospital in London was performed. Electronic records identified anaesthetic start time, knife-to-skin time, end-of-procedure time, and patient-leaving-theatre time. Time intervals were calculated and the relationship between touchtime utilisation and surgical cutting time was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). Results The mean total touchtime was 403 minutes (SD, 84 minutes) at the major trauma centre and 383 minutes (SD, 103 minutes) at the elective hospital. The mean total surgical cutting time was 259 minutes (SD, 72 minutes) at the major trauma centre and 233 minutes (SD, 75 minutes) at the elective hospital, from a total available time of 510 minutes per list. There was a significant correlation between touchtime and surgical cutting time at both hospitals (elective hospital: r (198) = 0.815, p < 0.001; major trauma centre: r (198) = 0.892, p < 0.001). The mean touchtime utilisation was 79.31% for the major trauma centre and 75.20% for the elective hospital; however, the mean total surgical cutting time was 51% and 46%, respectively, of total available time. Conclusion Despite a good correlation between touchtime and surgical cutting time, the range between these measures suggests that using touchtime utilisation alone to measure theatre efficiency may not sufficiently inform about efficient practices. We suggest complementing touchtime utilisation data with surgical cutting time may provide more information to contextualise efficiencies or inefficiencies in an operating theatre., Competing Interests: Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Kirk et al.)

Rationale, aims, and objectives: The Getting It Right First Time programme aims to reduce variation in clinical practice that unduly impacts on outcomes for patients in the National Health Service (NHS) in England; often termed "unwarranted variation." However, there is no "gold standard" method for detecting unwarranted variation. The aim of this study was to describe a method to allow such variation in recorded practice or patient outcomes between NHS trusts to be detected using data over multiple time periods. By looking at variation over time, it was hoped that patterns that could be missed by looking at data at a single time point, or averaged over a longer time period, could be identified. Methods: This was a retrospective time‐series analysis of observational administrative data. Data were extracted from the Hospital Episodes Statistics database for two exemplar aspects of clinical practice within the field of urology: (a) use of ureteric stents on first emergency admission to treat urinary tract stones and (b) waiting times for definitive surgery for urinary retention. Data were categorized into 3‐month time periods and three rules were used to detect unwarranted variation in the outcome metric relative to the national average: (a) two of any three consecutive values greater than two standard deviations above the mean, (b) four of any five consecutive values greater than one standard deviation above the mean, and (c) eight consecutive values above the mean. Results: For the urinary tract stones dataset, 24 trusts were identified as having unwarranted variation in the outcomes using funnel plots and 23 trusts using the time‐series method. For the urinary retention data, 18 trusted were identified as having unwarranted variation in the outcomes using funnel plots and 22 trusts using the time‐series method. Conclusions: The time‐series method may complement other methods to help identify unwarranted variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate volume–outcome relationships in nephrectomy and cystectomy for cancer. Materials and Methods: Data were extracted from the UK Hospital Episodes Statistics database, which records data on all National Health Service (NHS) hospital admissions in the England. Data were included for a 5‐year period (April 2013–March 2018 inclusive) and data on emergency and paediatric admissions were excluded. Data were extracted on the NHS trust and surgeon undertaking the procedure, the surgical technique used (open, laparoscopic or robot‐assisted) and length of hospital stay during the procedure. This dataset was supplemented by data on mortality from the UK Office for National Statistics. A number of volume thresholds and volume measures were investigated. Multilevel modelling was used to adjust for hierarchy and confounding factors. Results: Data were available for 18 107 nephrectomy and 6762 cystectomy procedures for cancer. There was little evidence of trust or surgeon volume influencing readmission rates or mortality. There was some evidence of shorter length of hospital stay for high‐volume surgeons, although the volume measure and threshold used were important. Conclusions: We found little evidence that further centralization of nephrectomy or cystectomy for cancer surgery will improve the patient outcomes investigated. It may be that length of stay can be optimized though training and support for lower‐volume centres, rather than further centralization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of total elbow replacement (TER) procedures conducted is relatively low compared to other joint arthroplasties. We have established a survey about current service provision and possible future improvements in the UK. Methods: A British Elbow and Shoulder Society (BESS) approved online survey was circulated to its surgical members Results: In total, 153 members of BESS responded. Almost 31% of respondents performed two to five TER in 2014; 28% performed none and 22.7% performed five to ten. Two-thirds of respondents did not perform any revision surgery. The main indication for TER was rheumatoid arthritis (33%), followed by acute trauma (28.5%). In addition, 67% of surgeons have an available 'network' for advice, either locally or regionally. Most primary procedures (93%) were carried out within the local units. However, 34% of complex primary or revision procedures were referred to another centre. Furthermore, 52% of respondents agree that, to be proficient in TER, a minimum number of procedures per annum should be performed: 62% stated that five procedures per annum should be considered as the minimum required. Suggestions for improvement included a hub and spoke model (48%) and a dedicated TER surgeon within the unit (45%). Conclusions: The survey highlights the interest in exploring options for improving TER provision in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We analyse the impact of implementing dual surgeon operating for reverse geometry total shoulder replacement (RGTSR) as part of the "Getting It Right First Time" (GIRFT) recommendations in our shoulder and elbow unit, and the learning curve associated with it. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing operative time and complication rates in patients who underwent RGTSR performed by a single consultant surgeon versus two consultant surgeons over a six-year period in a single centre, in addition to an analysing the learning curve over the same period. Results A total of 74 RGTSRs were performed over a six-year period: 35 patients had a single surgeon perform their procedure and 39 had dual surgeon operating. Observed complication rates for RGTSR nearly halved following the introduction of dual surgeon operating (22.9% vs 12.8%, p=0.36). The complication rate for the first 37 cases was 9/37 (24.4%) versus 4/37 (10.8%, p=0.22) for the next 37 cases. Conclusion The implementation of dual surgeon operating may lead to reduced operative complications, provide cost savings to the hospital and produced several other non-tangible benefits to the surgeons and the department. An observed reduction in complication rates demonstrates the learning curve associated with this procedure., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Parwaiz et al.)

Objective In this study, we aimed to analyse the impact of implementing the "Getting It Right First Time" (GIRFT) recommendations in our shoulder and elbow unit, which included the introduction of a shoulder and elbow multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting for all patients being considered for surgery. Methods A retrospective patient case-note review was undertaken to assess the impact of replacing the pre-admission clinic with an MDT meeting. We analysed how many of the proposed management plans were changed as a result of this new MDT, as well as the associated cost savings. Results Of note, 118/148 patients who attended the MDT had a provisional operative plan; 24/118 (20%) had their plan changed to non-operative management, 13/118 (11%) had a change of operation, and 6/118 (5%) were recommended further investigations or tertiary referral. This reduced theatre time required by 47 hours, an estimated saving of over £51,000. Significantly, 20/24 patients who had their plan changed from operative to non-operative still had not had an operation after a median follow-up of 39 months. Conclusion The introduction of a shoulder and elbow MDT for all patients being considered for an operation has improved decision-making, allowed optimisation of non-operative management, and helped prevent patients from having unnecessary operations. This has led to a better patient experience and a more efficient service delivery, which is associated with cost savings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Parwaiz et al.)