Effect of monitoring surgical outcomes using control charts to reduce major adverse events in patients: cluster randomised trial

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of introducing prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts and regular feedback on indicators to surgical teams on major adverse events in patients.DesignNational, parallel, cluster randomised trial embedding a difference-in-differences analysis.Setting40 surgical departments of hospitals across France.Participants155 362 adults who underwent digestive tract surgery. 20 of the surgical departments were randomised to prospective monitoring of outcomes using control charts with regular feedback on indicators (intervention group) and 20 to usual care only (control group).InterventionsProspective monitoring of outcomes using control charts, provided in sets quarterly, with regular feedback on indicators (intervention hospitals). To facilitate implementation of the programme, study champion partnerships were established at each site, comprising a surgeon and another member of the surgical team (surgeon, anaesthetist, or nurse), and were trained to conduct team meetings, display posters in operating rooms, maintain a logbook, and devise an improvement plan.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of major adverse events (inpatient death, intensive care stay, reoperation, and severe complications) within 30 days after surgery. Changes in surgical outcomes were compared before and after implementation of the programme between intervention and control hospitals, with adjustment for patient mix and clustering.Results75 047 patients were analysed in the intervention hospitals (37 579 before and 37 468 after programme implementation) versus 80 315 in the control hospitals (41 548 and 38 767). After introduction of the control chart, the absolute risk of a major adverse event was reduced by 0.9% (95% confidence interval 0.4% to 1.4%) in intervention compared with control hospitals, corresponding to 114 patients (70 to 280) who needed to receive the intervention to prevent one major adverse event. A significant decrease in major adverse events (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.96), patient death (0.84, 0.71 to 0.99), and intensive care stay (0.85, 0.76 to 0.94) was found in intervention compared with control hospitals. The same trend was observed for reoperation (0.91, 0.82 to 1.00), whereas severe complications remained unchanged (0.96, 0.87 to 1.07). Among the intervention hospitals, the effect size was proportional to the degree of control chart implementation witnessed. Highly compliant hospitals experienced a more important reduction in major adverse events (0.84, 0.77 to 0.92), patient death (0.78, 0.63 to 0.97), intensive care stay (0.76, 0.67 to 0.87), and reoperation (0.84, 0.74 to 0.96).ConclusionsThe implementation of control charts with feedback on indicators to surgical teams was associated with concomitant reductions in major adverse events in patients. Understanding variations in surgical outcomes and how to provide safe surgery is imperative for improvements.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02569450.

Quality of acute myocardial infarction care in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic: linked nationwide cohort study

“…Quality indicators (QIs) have been increasingly used as a mechanism to measure broad aspects of care, 9 identify unwanted variation 10 11 and drive quality improvement. 12 For AMI, a suite of QIs exist which are valid, 13 internationally recognised 14 and have built on earlier indicators that have an inverse association with mortality.…”

Enhanced postoperative surveillance versus standard of care to reduce mortality among adult surgical patients in Africa (ASOS-2): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

“… 18 Feedback on patient outcomes can reduce major adverse events following surgery. 19 Although these studies from well resourced environments provide support for the trial hypothesis, the ASOS-2 intervention did not decrease postoperative mortality in a low-resource environment.…”

Closing the loop: a 10-year experience with routine outcome measurements to improve treatment in hand surgery

“…Literature shows that resistance among the professionals may exist for implementing scorecards or surgeon outcomes. 17 – 20 We did not experience any resistance and were, in fact, encouraged by our surgical staff. The intention was to install feedback loops without being judgmental.…”

“… 19 A French study on a nationwide scale demonstrated a positive correlation with the outcome of care after implementing control cards. 20 Our future goals will be to implement the new International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) set for hand wrist disorders 28 (see Fig. 9 ), improve dashboards for patients, surgeons, and therapists.…”