» Articles » PMID: 37600282

Association of Hospital Bed Turnover With Patient Outcomes in Digestive Surgery

Overview
Journal Ann Surg Open
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2023 Aug 21
PMID 37600282
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Performance improvement in surgery aims at increasing productivity while preventing complications. It is unknown whether this relationship can be influenced by the complexity of surgery.

Methods: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted, based on generalized estimating equation modeling to determine the effect of hospital BTR on surgical outcomes, adjusting for patient mix and clustering within 631 public and private French hospitals. All patients who underwent minor or major digestive surgery between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018 were included. Hospital BTR was defined as the annual number of stays per bed for digestive surgery and categorized into tertiles. The primary endpoint was a composite measurement of events occurring within 30 days after surgery: inpatient death, extended intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and reoperation.

Results: Rate of adverse events was 2.51% in low BTR hospitals versus 2.25% in high BTR hospitals for minor surgery, and 16.79% versus 16.83% for major surgery. Patients who underwent minor surgery in high BTR hospitals experienced lower complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.97; = 0.009), mortality (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98, = 0.02), ICU admission (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99; = 0.03), and reoperation (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; = 0.002) compared to those in low BTR hospitals. Such differences were not consistently observed among patients admitted for major surgery.

Conclusions: High turnover of patients in beds is beneficial for minor procedures, but questionable for major surgeries.

Citing Articles

Training for excellence: using a multimodal videoconferencing platform to coach surgeons and improve intraoperative performance.

Shafa G, Kiani P, Masino C, Okrainec A, Pasternak J, Alseidi A Surg Endosc. 2023; 37(12):9406-9413.

PMID: 37670189 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10374-6.

References
1.
Bilimoria K, Liu Y, Paruch J, Zhou L, Kmiecik T, Ko C . Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013; 217(5):833-42.e1-3. PMC: 3805776. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.385. View

2.
Li Z, Zhao Q, Bai B, Ji G, Liu Y . Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs for Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2018; 42(11):3463-3473. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4656-0. View

3.
Dudley R, Johansen K, Brand R, Rennie D, Milstein A . Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA. 2000; 283(9):1159-66. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.9.1159. View

4.
Learn P, Bach P . A decade of mortality reductions in major oncologic surgery: the impact of centralization and quality improvement. Med Care. 2010; 48(12):1041-9. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f37d5f. View

5.
Johnston M, Arora S, King D, Bouras G, Almoudaris A, Davis R . A systematic review to identify the factors that affect failure to rescue and escalation of care in surgery. Surgery. 2015; 157(4):752-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.10.017. View