The rise of quality indicators in neurosurgery: 30-day unplanned reoperation rate evaluated in 3760 patients—a single-center experience
- 4 Downloads
Quality indicators are emerging as tools to evaluate health care outcomes. Few studies have evaluated indicators suitable for neurosurgery so far. Among others, reoperation rate has been suggested as a possible indicator. We aimed to evaluate the reoperation rate in a large neurosurgery adult collective.
In this exploratory post hoc analysis, we evaluated all patients operated in our service for elective and emergency surgery between January 2014 and May 2016. Planned and unplanned reoperations were filtered and a quantitative analysis, including uni- and multivariate analyses, was performed.
A total of 3760 patients were included in this evaluation. From 378 reoperated patients within 30 days (10.1%), 51 underwent planned procedures (1.4%). Three hundred twenty-seven patients (8.7%) represented the analyzed collective of patients having undergone unplanned surgical procedures, causing a total of 409 from 4268 additional procedures (9.6%). Early unplanned 7-day reoperation rate was 4.5% (n = 193), occurring in 4.5% of patients (n = 193). Postoperative hemorrhage (n = 107, 26.2%) and external ventricle drainage-associated infections or dislocation (n = 105, 25.7 %) were the most common indication for unplanned surgery.
Unplanned re-operation rate of a neurosurgical service can help to internally evaluate health care outcome and improve quality of care. Benchmarking with this indicator however is not recommendable as results can vary distinctly due to the heterogenic patient collective of each institution. We expect unplanned reoperation rates to be higher in large university hospitals and tertiary centers with complex cases, as compared to center with less complex cases treating patients with lower morbidity. In this study, we deliver an authentic portrait of a large neurosurgical center in Germany.
KeywordsReoperation rate Quality indicators Value-based healthcare
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required
- 5.Burns EM, Bottle A, Almoudaris AM, Mamidanna R, Aylin P, Darzi A, Nicholls RJ, Faiz OD (2013) Hierarchical multilevel analysis of increased caseload volume and postoperative outcome after elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 100:1531–1538. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9264 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Marini H, Merle V, Derrey S, Lebaron C, Josset V, Langlois O, Gilles Baray M, Frebourg N, Proust F, Czernichow P (2012) Surveillance of unplanned return to the operating theatre in neurosurgery combined with a mortality--morbidity conference: results of a pilot survey. BMJ Qual Saf 21:432–438. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000355 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Morris AM, Baldwin LM, Matthews B, Dominitz JA, Barlow WE, Dobie SA, Billingsley KG (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000231797.37743.9f CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Porter ME, Teisberg EO (2004) Redefining competition in health care. Harv Bus Rev 82(64-76):136Google Scholar
- 17.Pucciarelli S, Chiappetta A, Giacomazzo G, Barina A, Gennaro N, Rebonato M, Nitti D, Saugo M (2016) Surgical Unit volume and 30-day reoperation rate following primary resection for colorectal cancer in the Veneto Region (Italy). Tech Coloproctol 20:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1388-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Schipmann S, Akalin E, Doods J, Ewelt C, Stummer W, Suero Molina E (2016) When the infection hits the wound: matched case-control study in a neurosurgical patient collective including systematic literature review and risk factors analysis. World Neurosurg 95:178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.07.093 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.The Society of British Neurological Surgeons. Neurosurgical National Audit Programme. (2016). http://www.sbns.org.uk/index.php/audit/. Accessed 30 July 2019
- 23.Zaidi R, Macgregor AJ, Goldberg A (2016) Quality measures for total ankle replacement, 30-day readmission and reoperation rates within 1 year of surgery: a data linkage study using the NJR data set. BMJ Open 6:e011332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011332 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar