1 / 26

Carol J. Peden MD, FRCA, FICM, MPH

International Benchmarking to Improve Quality of Care and Patient Outcomes: The Dr. Foster Global Comparators project. Carol J. Peden MD, FRCA, FICM, MPH. With Thanks to:.

vin
Download Presentation

Carol J. Peden MD, FRCA, FICM, MPH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Benchmarking to Improve Quality of Care and Patient Outcomes: The Dr. Foster Global Comparators project Carol J. Peden MD, FRCA, FICM, MPH

  2. With Thanks to: • The GI GOAL GROUP including– Omar Faiz, Ed Livingston, David Chang, Freddie Penninckx, Mark Joy, ArunaMunasinghe, RavikrishnaMamidanna, Baljit Singh, Najjia Mahmoud, Steve Dalton, Ellen Klaus. • All Global Comparators Participant Hospitals. • Carol Peden – no disclosure

  3. International Variation The Doctor Foster Global Comparators Project International Collaboration of 40+ International Hospitals from around the world Submit 5 years of administrative data Pooling of data to allow international comparison and benchmarking Dissemination of best practice

  4. Purpose of the project • Sharing administrative data for quality improvement • Not for outcome measurement nor for public reporting • For learning through understanding of processes and to direct QI efforts amongst high performing units • Translation of coding system essential

  5. Global Comparators • Launched in 2011 with an elite collaboration of 32 hospitals across 5 countries. • All participants have sponsors at CEO or CMO level – often both. • Collaborative clinician led research groups. • Data is shared openly within the group but no raw data is published. • Four formal GOALs (or collaboratives) focused on specific clinical issues or areas. • Informal opportunities for networking across the group.

  6. GLOBAL COMPARATORS OBJECTIVES HOW? • Engage (clinical) leaders in Quality Improvement • Highlight variations in global quality standards • Provide a Forum for networking and knowledge transfer • Hospitals driving healthcare research based on data findings

  7. DEVELOPING THE GC DATASET • Bringing a database together from 44 hospitals across the globe is a challenge • Started with 8m in-patient records currently 18m in-patient records • Combining data from different database systems in different countries: move to compare apples with apples from apples to pears • Clarifying definitions across countries: even an in-patient can vary from country to country • On going in-put from coders and clinicians allow for comparison between countries

  8. MorTALITY RELATED to ComorbiditY

  9. International Coding Systems

  10. International Coding Systems Dr. Foster GI Goal Group ICD-10, OPCS 4.6 United Kingdom ICD-9-CM Italy, USA, Belgium CVV (Classificatie van verrichtingen) Netherlands

  11. Dr. Foster GI Goal Group Process

  12. Dr. Foster GI Goal Group Funnel plot of adjusted length of stay for colorectal resection for individual centres Jan 2006-June 2011

  13. Dr. Foster GI Goal Group Trends in Uptake of Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection

  14. Dr. Foster GI Goal Group Trends in Uptake of Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection

  15. GI GOAL • Measuring institutional performance in colorectal surgery in the international setting • The linkage of international hospital administrative data through the translation of coding systems is feasible and allows the development of models for comparison of surgical outcome. • Manuscript in press Colorectal Disease Journal • Editorial comment • Laparoscopy for colectomies and rectal resection reduces mortality • Analyses of the GC data have shown that across all GC participants laparoscopy v open surgery (in a propensity matched cohort) significantly reduces mortality when performing a colectomy and/or rectal resection • Manuscript submitted • A QI initiative has commenced looking at those hospitals who use primarily open surgery for colectomies and rectal resections

  16. GI GOAL • Relative contribution paper – finalized – ready for submission • To analyze differences in in-hospital mortality following colorectal resection (CRR) in a selection of US and UK hospitals, to determine important contributors and how these may differ between the two countries, analysis done by surgical fellow GI GOAL group • Emergency admissions • Looking at variation in outcomes across all GC participants for a colectomy and rectal resection with an emergency admission • Followed up by QI initiative • Stoma formation • Understanding incidence of stoma formation and reversal /closure for >65 v younger cohort • Less resection and is stoma formation used as palliative care? • Decision making processes for surgery on the elderly in colorectal surgery • Understanding the decision making processes and correlating these to outcomes will aid in assessment of best practice for this patient group • Analyses finalized, to be followed up by QI initiative

  17. Emergency Laparotomy OuTCOMES • BJA Saunders, Murray, Varley, Pichel, Peden 2012 • 1,835 patients from 35 NHS hospitals • Unadjusted 30-day mortalities: • 14.9 % overall • 24.4 % if over 80 yrs • Compared with: • Elective colorectal resection 2.7 % • Oesophagectomy 3.1 % • Gastrectomy 4.2% • Liver met. resection 1 %

  18. When is death inevitable after emergency laparotomy? • Al- Temimi et al J Am CollSurg 2012;215:503-11 • NSQIP database • 37,500 patients • 30 day mortality 14% • Variables most associated with death • ASA, age, functional status and sepsis

  19. Scope of Our Analysis • Outcomes for Emergency Colorectal Admissions • Hospital Mortality • LOS • Readmissions • Comparison between Countries Survival Curves at 7d

  20. WhERE ARE WE NOW? • Further work on coding – classification of “emergency” • Understand organisationaldifferences – use of diagnosis codes e.g. CT scans • Use short organisational questionnaire – e.g. How many Critical Care Beds? Use questions from UK National Emergency Laparotomy Audit

  21. Comparison of Emergency colorectal outcomes: challenges • Differences in definition of an emergency • Differences in case mix e.g. some hospitals do not have an ED • 30d in hospital mortality may not be a valid comparison • Use 7d mortality • Explore organisational differences with questionnaire • 30d mortality indicator would be very valuable (SHMI UK)

  22. Trends may provide the most information UK NL US Lee et al: Seven day mortality after ischemic stroke: international comparisons amongst industrialized nations. Stroke 2014;45:AWPM99

  23. Successes and Challenges • Strong and Committed group of Senior Clinicians and Executives • Greater understanding of challenges of administrative data • Common themes: e.g. weekend differences • Absolute numbers may be of less value than trends • Who is improving … and why? • Nest steps linking the data to quality improvement.

  24. Global Comparative data? • "In God we trust, all others bring data."
- W. Edwards Deming

More Related