Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp 1954–1960 | Cite as

An Efficient Risk Adjustment Model to Predict Inpatient Adverse Events after Surgery

  • Jamie E. AndersonEmail author
  • John Rose
  • Abraham Noorbakhsh
  • Mark A. Talamini
  • Samuel R. G. Finlayson
  • Stephen W. Bickler
  • David C. Chang
Article

Abstract

Background

Risk adjustment is an important component of surgical outcomes and quality analyses. Current models include numerous preoperative variables; however, the relative contribution of these variables may be limited. This research seeks to identify a model with the fewest number of variables necessary to perform an adequate risk adjustment to predict any inpatient adverse event for use in resource-limited settings.

Methods

All patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2010 were included. Outcomes were inpatient mortality or any surgical complication captured by NSQIP. Models were built by sequential addition of preoperative risk variables selected by their area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

Among 863,349 patients, the single variable with the highest AUC was American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (AUC = 0.7127). AUC values reached 0.7923 with five variables (ASA classification, wound classification, functional status prior to surgery, albumin, and age) and 0.7945 with six variables. The sixth variable was one of the following: alkaline phosphatase, weight loss, principal anesthesia technique, gender, or emergency status. The model with the highest discrimination that did not require laboratories included ASA classification, functional status prior to surgery, wound classification, and age (AUC = 0.7810). Including all 66 preoperative variables produced little additional gain (AUC = 0.8006).

Conclusions

Six variables are sufficient to develop a risk adjustment tool for inpatient surgical mortality and morbidity. This research has important implications for the field of surgical outcomes research by improving efficiency of data collection. This limited model can aid the expansion of risk-adjusted analyses to resource-limited settings worldwide.

Keywords

Ventral Hernia Repair Wound Classification Adequate Risk Adjustment Inpatient Adverse Event Predict Inpatient Mortality 
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

Disclosures

The ACS NSQIP and its participating hospitals are the source of data used in this research; they have not verified, and are not responsible for, the statistical validity of the data analysis or conclusions of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2012) User guide for the 2010 participant use data file. October 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Small and Rural Website. http://site.acsNSQIP.org/program-specifics/program-options/small-rural-program/. Accessed 15 April 2013
  3. 3.
    Dimick JB, Osborne NH, Hall BL et al (2010) Risk adjustment for comparing hospital quality with surgery: how many variables are needed? J Am Coll Surg 210:503–508PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson JE, Lassiter R, Bickler SW et al (2012) Brief tool to measure risk adjusted surgical outcomes in resource-limited hospitals. Arch Surg 147:798–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimick JB, Welch HG, Birkmeyer JD (2004) Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA 292:847–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Healey C, Osler TM, Rogers FB et al (2003) Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score model: motor score alone is a better predictor. J Trauma 54(4):671–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beckwick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Statistics review 13: receiver operator characteristic curves. Crit Care 8:508–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meredith JW, Evans G, Kilgo PD et al (2002) A comparison of the abilities of nine scoring algorithms in predicting mortality. J Trauma 53:621–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Connell FA, Koepsell TD (1985) Measures of gain in certainty from a diagnostic test. Am J Epidemiol 121:744–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD et al (2008) An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modeling strategy based on available data. Lancet 372:139–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rubinfeld I, Farooq M, Velanovich V et al (2010) Predicting surgical risk: how much data is enough? AMIA Annu Symp Proc 3010:777–781Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Birkmeyer JD, Shahian DM, Dimick JB et al (2008) Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 207:777–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 250:187–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY et al (2009) Effect of subjective preoperative variables on risk adjusted assessment of hospital morbidity and mortality. Ann Surg 249:682–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shiloach M, Frencher SK, Steeger JE et al (2010) Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210:6–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Daley J, Khuri SF, Henderson W et al (1997) Risk adjustment of the postoperative morbidity rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the national veteran’s affairs surgical risk study. J Am Coll Surg 185:328–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crawford RS, Cambria RP, Abularrage CJ et al (2010) Preoperative functional status predicts perioperative outcomes after infrainguinal bypass surgery. J Vasc Surg 51:351–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davenport DL, Ferraris VA, Hosokawa P et al (2007) Multivariate predictors of postoperative cardiac adverse events after general and vascular surgery: results from the patient safety in surgery study. J Am Coll Sug 204:1199–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie E. Anderson
    • 1
    Email author
  • John Rose
    • 1
  • Abraham Noorbakhsh
    • 1
  • Mark A. Talamini
    • 2
  • Samuel R. G. Finlayson
    • 3
  • Stephen W. Bickler
    • 1
  • David C. Chang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryState University of New York at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations