Purpose: Hospital readmissions after surgery are a focus of quality improvement efforts. Although some reflect appropriate care, others are potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs). We aim to describe the burden, timing, and factors associated with readmissions after complex cancer surgery. Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (2013) was used to select patients undergoing a complex oncologic resection, which was defined as esophagectomy/gastrectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, colorectal resection, lung resection, or cystectomy. Readmissions within 30 days from discharge were analyzed. International Classification of Diseases (9th revision) primary diagnosis codes were reviewed to identify PPRs. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified demographic, clinical, and hospital factors associated with readmissions. Results: Of the 59,493 eligible patients, 14% experienced a 30-day readmission, and 82% of these were deemed PPRs. Half of the readmissions occurred within the first 8 days of discharge. Infections (26%), GI complications (17%), and respiratory conditions (10%) accounted for most readmissions. Factors independently associated with an increased likelihood of readmission included Medicaid versus private insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.48), higher comorbidity score (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.33 to 1.63), discharge to a facility (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.51), prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.52), and occurrence of a major in-hospital complication (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.34). Conclusion: One in seven patients undergoing complex cancer surgery suffered a readmission within 30 days. We identified common causes of these and identified patients at high risk for such an event. These data can be used by physicians, administrators, and policymakers to develop strategies to decrease readmissions.
Comparison of Rates and Outcomes of Readmission to Index vs Nonindex Hospitals After Major Cancer Surgery
Background: Mutations in the leucine rich repeat kinase 2 ( LRRK2) gene are among the most common genetic causes of Lewy body Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, LRRK2 mutations can also lead to a variety of pathological phenotypes other than typical PD, including relatively pure nigrostriatal cell loss without alpha-synuclein-positive Lewy bodies or Lewy neurites, progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and multiple system atrophy (MSA). The mechanisms behind this remarkable pleomorphic pathology are currently unclear. Objective: To genetically and pathologically characterize a case with a LRRK2, p.Ile1371Val rare variant and pathologically proven MSA. Methods: From the brain donation program at the Parkinson’s Institute and Clinical Center, we selected 26 brains with family history and a with clinicopathological diagnosis of PD ( n = 20), MSA ( n = 4), or PSP ( n = 2). We performed neuropathological evaluation, including alpha-synuclein and tau immunohistochemistry and sequenced 188 genes that have been reported as causative for or associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Results: We identified a known LRRK2, p.Ile1371Val genetic variant in a case with clinically diagnosed and pathologically proven MSA. Neuropathology revealed that the olivopontocerebellar system was more affected than the striatonigral system. Conclusions: Our data suggest that genetic variants in the LRRK2 gene can present clinically and neuropathologically as MSA. One other LRRK2 genetic variant ( LRRK2, p.Ile2020Thr) has been reported with a neuropathological diagnosis of MSA. Interestingly, the LRRK2 variant ( LRRK2, p.Ile1371Val) identified here has been reported previously in a postmortem case with Lewy body PD. Future studies are critical to discover the mechanisms leading to different neurodegenerative trajectories both in neuronal and glial cell populations.
Objectivity in subjectivity: do students’ self and peer assessments correlate with examiners’ subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study
Objectives The qualitative subjective assessment has been exercised either by self-reflection (self-assessment (SA)) or by an observer (peer assessment (PA)) and is considered to play an important role in students’ development. The objectivity of PA and SA by students as well as those by faculty examiners has remained debated. This matters most when it comes to a high-stakes examination. We explored the degree of objectivity in PA, SA, as well as the global rating by examiners being Examiners’ Subjective Assessment (ESA) compared with Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Undergraduate medical students at Alfaisal University, Riyadh. Participants All second-year medical students (n=164) of genders, taking a course to learn clinical history taking and general physical examination. Main outcome measures A Likert scale questionnaire was distributed among the participants during selected clinical skills sessions. Each student was evaluated randomly by peers (PA) as well as by himself/herself (SA). Two OSCEs were conducted where students were assessed by an examiner objectively as well as subjectively (ESA) for a global rating of confidence and well-preparedness. OSCE-1 had fewer topics and stations, whereas OSCE-2 was terminal and full scale. Results OSCE-1 (B=0.10) and ESA (B=8.16) predicted OSCE-2 scores. ‘No nervousness’ in PA (r=0.185, p=0.018) and ‘confidence’ in SA (r=0.207, p=0.008) correlated with ‘confidence’ in ESA. In ‘well-preparedness’, SA correlated with ESA (r=0.234, p=0.003). Conclusions OSCE-1 and ESA predicted students’ performance in the OSCE-2, a high-stakes evaluation, indicating practical ‘objectivity’ in ESA, whereas SA and PA had minimal predictive role. Certain components of SA and PA correlated with ESA, suggesting partial objectivity given the limited objectiveness of ESA. Such difference in ‘qualitative’ objectivity probably reflects experience. Thus, subjective assessment can be used with some degree of objectivity for continuous assessment.
Potentially preventable readmissions after complex cancer surgery: Analysis of the national readmissions dataset.
109 Background: Hospital readmissions following surgery are a focus of quality improvement efforts nationwide. Although some reflect appropriate care, others are potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs). We aim to describe the burden, timing, and factors associated with PPRs after complex cancer surgery. Methods: The National Readmissions Dataset (2013) was used to select patients undergoing a complex oncologic resection (defined as esophagectomy/gastrectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, colorectal resection, lung resection, and cystectomy). All Readmissions occurring within 30 days from discharge were analyzed. Causes for readmissions were categorized in eleven diagnostic groups and tabulated. ICD-9 primary diagnosis codes were reviewed to identify PPRs. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify demographic, clinical and hospital factors associated with PPRs. Results: We analyzed 60,970 patients with 92,260 admissions. A 30 day readmission occurred in 14% of patients, and was highest following cystectomy (25%) and lowest for lung resections (9%). Of all readmissions 82% were deemed to be PPRs. Half of PPRs occurred within the first 10 days of discharge. Infections, gastrointestinal complications and respiratory conditions accounted for 59% of PPRs. Other common causes included dehydration/electrolyte deficiencies (11%), exacerbation of comorbidity (9.2%), bleeding (5%), thromboembolism (3.5%), and wound complications (3.2%). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of PPRs include Medicaid compared with private insurance (OR 1.24, 95%CI 0.8-1.7), higher comorbid conditions (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.32, 1.59), and discharge to a facility (OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.7-2.1). Patients with a prolonged hospital stay or a major complication during the index admission had a 34% (OR 1.34, 95%CI 1.3-1.4), and 64% (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.5-1.7) higher likelihood of a PPR respectively. Conclusions: Most 30 day readmissions after complex cancer surgery are potentially preventable and occur within 10 days of discharge. We identify common causes of readmission and high risk populations to help physicians, administrators and policy makers develop strategies to decrease PPRs.
Safety and Benefit of Discontinuing Statin Therapy in the Setting of Advanced, Life-Limiting Illness
Purpose High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with new diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any Veterans Health Administration medical center nationwide in 2008 were ascertained through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry and sent questionnaires assessing a variety of aspects of patient-centered cancer care. We received questionnaires from 63% of eligible patients (N = 1,109). Descriptive analyses characterizing patient experiences with supportive care and binary logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of receipt of help wanted for each of the five symptom categories. Results There were significant gaps in patient-centered quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment. In multivariable modeling, the impact of clinical factors and patient race on odds of receiving wanted help varied by symptom. Coordination of care quality predicted receipt of wanted help for all symptoms, independent of patient demographic or clinical characteristics. Conclusion This study revealed substantial gaps in patient-centered quality of care, difficult to characterize through quality measurement relying on medical record review alone. It established the feasibility of collecting patient-reported quality measures. Improving quality measurement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems are high priorities for improving the processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.