A national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery: the EPOCH stepped-wedge cluster RCT

Author:

Peden Carol J1ORCID,Stephens Tim2ORCID,Martin Graham3ORCID,Kahan Brennan C4ORCID,Thomson Ann4ORCID,Everingham Kirsty2ORCID,Kocman David3,Lourtie Jose5ORCID,Drake Sharon5,Girling Alan6ORCID,Lilford Richard7ORCID,Rivett Kate8,Wells Duncan9,Mahajan Ravi10,Holt Peter11,Yang Fan12ORCID,Walker Simon12ORCID,Richardson Gerry12ORCID,Kerry Sally4,Anderson Iain13,Murray Dave14ORCID,Cromwell David15,Phull Mandeep216,Grocott Mike PW1718ORCID,Bion Julian19,Pearse Rupert M2ORCID,

Affiliation:

1. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

2. William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

3. Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

4. Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

5. Royal College of Anaesthetists, London, UK

6. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

7. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

8. Patient representative, London, UK

9. Patient representative, Buckinghamshire, UK

10. Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

11. Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s University of London, London, UK

12. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

13. Salford Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

14. South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK

15. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

16. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Queen’s Hospital, Romford, UK

17. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

18. Anaesthesia and Critical Care Research Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

19. Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Abstract

Background Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Objectives The objectives were to assess whether or not the QI programme improves 90-day survival after emergency abdominal surgery; to assess effects on 180-day survival, hospital stay and hospital readmission; and to better understand these findings through an integrated process evaluation, ethnographic study and cost-effectiveness analysis. Design This was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. Hospitals were organised into 15 geographical clusters, and commenced the QI programme in random order over 85 weeks. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effects parametric survival model, adjusting for time-related effects. Ethnographic and economics data were collected in six hospitals. The process evaluation included all hospitals. Setting The trial was set in acute surgical services of 93 NHS hospitals. Participants Patients aged ≥ 40 years who were undergoing emergency abdominal surgery were eligible. Intervention The intervention was a QI programme to implement an evidence-based care pathway. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were mortality within 180 days, length of hospital stay and hospital readmission within 180 days. The main economic measure was the quality-adjusted life-years. Data sources Data were obtained from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database; qualitative interviews and ethnographic observations; quality-of-life and NHS resource use data were collected via questionnaires. Results Of 15,873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 participants in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. The primary outcome occurred in 1393 participants in the usual care group (16%), compared with 1210 patients in the QI group (16%) [QI vs. usual care hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.28]. No differences were found in mortality at 180 days or hospital readmission; there was a small increase in hospital stay in the QI group (HR for discharge 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97). There were only modest improvements in care processes following QI implementation. The ethnographic study revealed good QI engagement, but limited time and resources to implement change, affecting which processes teams addressed, the rate of change and eventual success. In some sites, there were challenges around prioritising the intervention in busy environments and in obtaining senior engagement. The intervention is unlikely to be cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, but may be cost-effective over the lifetime horizon. Limitations Substantial delays were encountered in securing data access to national registries. Fewer patients than expected underwent surgery and the mortality rate was lower than anticipated. Conclusions There was no survival benefit from a QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. The modest impact of the intervention on process measures, despite good clinician engagement, may have been limited by the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Future work Future QI programmes must balance intervention complexity with the practical realities of NHS services to ensure that such programmes can be delivered with the resources available. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80682973 and The Lancet protocol 13PRT/7655. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

General Economics, Econometrics and Finance

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3