Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 1019–1025 | Cite as

Surgeons Are Overlooking Post-Discharge Complications: A Prospective Cohort Study

  • A. VisserEmail author
  • D. T. Ubbink
  • D. J. Gouma
  • J. C. Goslings
Article

Abstract

Introduction

The registration of surgical complications is an important quality indicator of hospital medical care. Previous research has suggested that surgeons only record certain complications after discharge. The extent and impact of this potential under-recording of post-discharge complications is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to determine the frequency, type, and grade of post-discharge complications as reported by patients and their surgeons.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was performed in the Department of Surgery of a University Medical Center. From December 2008 until August 2009, all adult surgical patients were interviewed by phone or questionnaire 1 month after their discharge to inquire about any new complications after discharge. These complications were compared with the surgeon-reported post-discharge complications and letters from the outpatient clinic as documented in the patients’ medical files.

Results

A total of 976 patients were included. Patients reported more complications (659) than did surgeons (465), especially psychological disturbances (4.2 vs. 0 %). A medical consult was needed in 527 (80 %) of the patient-reported complications. Of all patient-reported complications, 291 (44 %) resulted in a visit to the outpatient clinic, 144 (22 %) in a consultation with a general practitioner, and 92 (14 %) led to referral to a hospital; 743 (76 %) were treated non-operatively.

Conclusion

Surgeons are unaware of many of the complications their patients experience after discharge. These post-discharge complications are important to patients and are therefore relevant to be aware of and to act upon whenever necessary.

Keywords

Risk Difference Medical File Complication Type Abnormal Wound Healing Important Quality Indicator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sarah Baalman (research assistant), Marian Meijer (research assistant), and Anne van Wijngaarden (MD) for assisting in data collection and handling of the database.

Funding

Unrestricted grant from the AGIS Health Innovation Project.

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest reported.

References

  1. 1.
    Kievit J, Krukerink M, Marang-van de Mheen PJ (2010) Surgical adverse outcome reporting as part of routine clinical care. Qual Saf Health Care 19:e20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM et al (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324:370–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bruijne MC, Zegers M, Hoornhout LH et al (2007) Onbedoelde schade in Nederlandse Ziekenhuizen. EMGI Instituut en NIVEL, Utrecht. ISBN 978-90-6905-845-0Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cima RR, Lackore KA, Nehring AA et al (2011) How best to measure surgical quality? Comparison of the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (AHRQ-PSI) and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) postoperative adverse events at a single institution. Surgery 150(5):943–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grosse Frie KJ, van der Meulen J, Black N (2012) Relationship between patient’s report of complications and symptoms, disability and quality of life after surgery. Br J Surg 99:1156–1163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goslings JC, Gouma DJ (2008) What is a surgical complication? World J Surg 32(6):952. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9563-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kazaure HS, Roman SA, Sosa JA (2012) Association of postdischarge complications with reoperation and mortality in general surgery. Arch Surg 147(11):1000–1007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaasschieter EG, van Olden GJ (2007) Complicatieregistratie en fractuurbehandeling. Ned Tijdschr Trauma 6:182–185Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marang-van de Mheen PJ, van Duijn-Bakker N, Kievit J (2008) Adverse outcome after discharge: occurrence, treatment and determinants. Qual Saf Health Care 17:47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    STROBE statement. http://www.strobe-statement.org. Accessed 30 Sep 2013
  11. 11.
    Marang-van de Mheen PJ, van Duijn-Bakker N, Kievit J (2003) Automated registration of adverse events in surgical patients in the Netherlands: current status. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 147:1273–1277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Visser A, Ubbink DT, Gouma DJ et al (2012) Questionnaire versus telephone follow-up to detect post-discharge complications in surgical patients: randomized clinical trial. World J Surg 36:2576–2583. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1740-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classifications of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111(5):518–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ubbink DT, Visser A, Gouma DJ et al (2012) Registration of surgical adverse outcome: a reliability study in a university hospital. BMJ Open 2(3):e000891PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veen EJ, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Leenen LP et al (2005) The registration of complications in surgery: a learning curve. World J Surg 29:402–409. doi: 10.1007/s00268-004-7358-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ward JK, Armitage G (2012) Can patients report patient safety incidents in a hospital setting? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 21(8):685–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Visser
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. T. Ubbink
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. J. Gouma
    • 1
  • J. C. Goslings
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations