Abstract
ObjectivesPostoperative wound dehiscence (PWD) is a serious complication to laparotomy, leading to higher mortality, readmissions and cost. The aims of the present study are to investigate whether risk adjusted PWD rates could reliably differentiate between Norwegian hospitals, and whether PWD rates were associated with hospital characteristics such as hospital type and laparotomy volume.DesignObservational study using patient administrative data from all Norwegian hospitals, obtained from the Norwegian Patient Registry, for the period 2011–2015, and linked using the unique person identification number.ParticipantsAll patients undergoing laparotomy, aged at least 15 years, with length of stay at least 2 days and no diagnosis code for immunocompromised state or relating to pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium. The final data set comprised 66 925 patients with 78 086 laparotomy episodes from 47 hospitals.OutcomesThe outcome was wound dehiscence, identified by the presence of a wound reclosure code, risk adjusted for patient characteristics and operation type.ResultsThe final data set comprised 1477 wound dehiscences. Crude PWD rates varied from 0% to 5.1% among hospitals, with an overall rate of 1.89%. Three hospitals with statistically significantly higher PWD than average were identified, after case mix adjustment and correction for multiple comparisons. Hospital volume was not associated with PWD rate, except that hospitals with very few laparotomies had lower PWD rates.ConclusionsAmong Norwegian hospitals, there is considerable variation in PWD rate that cannot be explained by operation type, age or comorbidity. This warrants further investigation into possible causes, such as surgical technique, perioperative procedures or handling of complications. The risk adjusted PWD rate after laparotomy is a candidate quality indicator for Norwegian hospitals.
Reference48 articles.
1. Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators
2. OECD. Health Care Quality and Outcomes: OECD, 2018. Available: http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-care-quality-and-outcomes.htm (accessed 06 Jun 2018).
3. Using mortality data for profiling hospital quality of care and targeting substandard care;Hannan;J Soc Health Syst,1989
4. Patient Safety Indicators: using administrative data to identify potential patient safety concerns;Miller;Health Serv Res,2001
5. OECD. Health Care Quality Indicators - Patient Safety, 2018. Available: http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/hcqi-patient-safety.htm (accessed 06 Jun 2018).
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献