TY - JOUR
T1 - Establishing best practices for structured NSQIP review
AU - Cunningham, Aaron J.
AU - Howell, Brian
AU - Polites, Stephanie
AU - Krishnaswami, Sanjay
AU - Hughey, Eryn
AU - Terry, Susan
AU - Fox, Jenn
AU - Azarow, Kenneth
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2020/5
Y1 - 2020/5
N2 - Introduction: We describe an institutional program (INR- Interval NSQIP Review), to augment NSQIP utility through structured, multidisciplinary review of surgical outcomes in order to create near ‘real-time’ adverse event (AE) monitoring and improve surgeon awareness. Methods: INR is a monthly meeting of quality analysts, surgeons and nursing leadership initiated to validate AE with NSQIP criteria, review data in real-time, and perform in-depth case analyses. Occurrence classification concerns were referred for national NSQIP review. Monthly reports were distributed to surgeons with AE rates and case-specific details. Results: Since implementation, 377/3,026 AE underwent in-depth review. Of those, 7 occurrences were referred for clarification by central NSQIP review. Overall 37 (1.2%) were not consistent with NSQIP-defined AE after INR. Time from occurrence to surgeon review decreased by 223 days (296 vs. 73 days, p = 0.006). Discussion: Structured monthly institutional review of AE prior to submission can create greater transparency and confidence of NSQIP data, reduce time from occurrence to surgeon recognition, and improve stakeholder understanding of AE definitions. This approach can be tailored to institutional needs and should be evaluated for downstream improvement in patient outcomes.
AB - Introduction: We describe an institutional program (INR- Interval NSQIP Review), to augment NSQIP utility through structured, multidisciplinary review of surgical outcomes in order to create near ‘real-time’ adverse event (AE) monitoring and improve surgeon awareness. Methods: INR is a monthly meeting of quality analysts, surgeons and nursing leadership initiated to validate AE with NSQIP criteria, review data in real-time, and perform in-depth case analyses. Occurrence classification concerns were referred for national NSQIP review. Monthly reports were distributed to surgeons with AE rates and case-specific details. Results: Since implementation, 377/3,026 AE underwent in-depth review. Of those, 7 occurrences were referred for clarification by central NSQIP review. Overall 37 (1.2%) were not consistent with NSQIP-defined AE after INR. Time from occurrence to surgeon review decreased by 223 days (296 vs. 73 days, p = 0.006). Discussion: Structured monthly institutional review of AE prior to submission can create greater transparency and confidence of NSQIP data, reduce time from occurrence to surgeon recognition, and improve stakeholder understanding of AE definitions. This approach can be tailored to institutional needs and should be evaluated for downstream improvement in patient outcomes.
KW - Adverse events
KW - NSQIP
KW - Quality improvement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082527239&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85082527239&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.02.057
DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.02.057
M3 - Article
C2 - 32234240
AN - SCOPUS:85082527239
SN - 0002-9610
VL - 219
SP - 865
EP - 868
JO - American Journal of Surgery
JF - American Journal of Surgery
IS - 5
ER -