Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 6/2014

01-06-2014

Limitations of ACS-NSQIP in Reporting Complications for Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy: Underscoring the Need for a Pancreas-Specific Module

Authors: Irene Epelboym, Irmina Gawlas, James A. Lee, Beth Schrope, John A. Chabot, John D. Allendorf

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 6/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Large centralized databases are used with increasing frequency for reporting hospital-specific and nationwide trends and outcomes after various surgical procedures in order to improve quality of surgical care. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) is a risk-adjusted, case-weighted complication tracking initiative that reports 30-day outcomes from more than 400 academic and community institutions in the US. However, the accuracy of event reporting specific to pancreatic surgery has never been examined in depth.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients, the information on whose postoperative course was originally reported through ACS-NSQIP between 2006 and 2010. Preoperative characteristics, operative data, and postoperative events were recorded after review of electronic medical records including physician and nursing notes, operative room records and anesthesiologist reports. Fidelity of reported clinical events was assessed. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for each variable of interest.

Results

Two hundred and forty-nine pancreatectomies were reviewed, including 145 (58.2 %) Whipple procedures, 19 (7.6 %) total pancreatectomies, 65 (26.1 %) distal pancreatectomies, and 15 (6.0 %) central or partial resections. Median age was 65.7, males comprised 41.5 % of the group, and 74.3 % of patients were Caucasian. The overall rate of complications reported by NSQIP was 44.0 %, compared with 45.0 % in our review, however discordance was observed in 27.3 % of the time, including 34 cases of reporting a complication where there was not one, and 34 cases of missed complication. The most frequently reported event was postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion, however this was also the event most commonly misclassified. Additionally, three procedures unrelated to the index operation were recorded as reoperation events. While a pancreas-specific module does not yet exist, ACS-NSQIP reports a 7.6 % rate of organ-space surgical site infections; when compared with our institutional rate of Grades B and C postoperative fistula (10.4 %), we observed discordance 4.4 % of the time. Delayed gastric emptying, a common post-pancreatectomy morbidity, was not captured at all. Additionally, there were significant inaccuracies in reporting urinary tract infections, postoperative pneumonia, wound complications, and postoperative sepsis, with discordance rates of 4.4, 3.2, 3.6, and 6.8 %, respectively.

Conclusions

ACS-NSQIP data are an important and valuable tool for evaluating quality of surgical care, however pancreatectomy-specific postoperative events are often misclassified, underscoring the need for a hepatopancreatobiliary-specific module to better capture key outcomes in this complex and unique patient population.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W et al (1998) The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care: National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 228:491–507PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W et al (1998) The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care: National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 228:491–507PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL et al (2010) Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. Adv Surg 44:251–267PubMedCrossRef Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL et al (2010) Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. Adv Surg 44:251–267PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K et al (2009) Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg 250:363–376PubMed Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K et al (2009) Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg 250:363–376PubMed
5.
go back to reference Vaid S, Bell T, Grim R et al (2012) Predicting risk of death in general surgery patients on the basis of preoperative variables using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Perm J 16:10–17PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Vaid S, Bell T, Grim R et al (2012) Predicting risk of death in general surgery patients on the basis of preoperative variables using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Perm J 16:10–17PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fink AS, Campbell DA Jr, Mentzer RM Jr et al (2002) The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Ann Surg 236:344–353 (discussion 353–344)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Fink AS, Campbell DA Jr, Mentzer RM Jr et al (2002) The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Ann Surg 236:344–353 (discussion 353–344)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kazaure HS, Roman SA, Rosenthal RA et al (2013) Cardiac arrest among surgical patients: an analysis of incidence, patient characteristics, and outcomes in ACS-NSQIP. JAMA Surg 148:14–21PubMedCrossRef Kazaure HS, Roman SA, Rosenthal RA et al (2013) Cardiac arrest among surgical patients: an analysis of incidence, patient characteristics, and outcomes in ACS-NSQIP. JAMA Surg 148:14–21PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Khan MA, Grinberg R, Johnson S et al (2013) Perioperative risk factors for 30-day mortality after bariatric surgery: is functional status important? Surg Endosc 27:1772–1777PubMedCrossRef Khan MA, Grinberg R, Johnson S et al (2013) Perioperative risk factors for 30-day mortality after bariatric surgery: is functional status important? Surg Endosc 27:1772–1777PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lee DY, Chung EL, Guend H et al (2013) Predictors of mortality after emergency colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP. Ann Surg 259:148–156CrossRef Lee DY, Chung EL, Guend H et al (2013) Predictors of mortality after emergency colectomy for Clostridium difficile colitis: an analysis of ACS-NSQIP. Ann Surg 259:148–156CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Madenci AL, Keith Ozaki C, Belkin M et al (2013) Carotid-subclavian bypass and subclavian-carotid transposition in the thoracic endovascular aortic repair era. J Vasc Surg 57:1275–1282PubMedCrossRef Madenci AL, Keith Ozaki C, Belkin M et al (2013) Carotid-subclavian bypass and subclavian-carotid transposition in the thoracic endovascular aortic repair era. J Vasc Surg 57:1275–1282PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Cima R, Dankbar E, Lovely J et al (2013) Colorectal surgery surgical site infection reduction program: a national surgical quality improvement program-driven multidisciplinary single-institution experience. J Am Coll Surg 216:23–33PubMedCrossRef Cima R, Dankbar E, Lovely J et al (2013) Colorectal surgery surgical site infection reduction program: a national surgical quality improvement program-driven multidisciplinary single-institution experience. J Am Coll Surg 216:23–33PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Nelson MT, Greenblatt DY, Soma G et al (2012) Preoperative factors predict mortality after major lower-extremity amputation. Surgery 152:685–694 (discussion 686–694)PubMedCrossRef Nelson MT, Greenblatt DY, Soma G et al (2012) Preoperative factors predict mortality after major lower-extremity amputation. Surgery 152:685–694 (discussion 686–694)PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Sun RC, Button AM, Smith BJ et al (2013) A comprehensive assessment of transfusion in elective pancreatectomy: risk factors and complications. J Gastrointest Surg 17:627–635PubMedCrossRef Sun RC, Button AM, Smith BJ et al (2013) A comprehensive assessment of transfusion in elective pancreatectomy: risk factors and complications. J Gastrointest Surg 17:627–635PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Leichtle SW, Kaoutzanis C, Mouawad NJ et al (2013) Classic Whipple versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in the ACS NSQIP. J Surg Res 183:170–176PubMedCrossRef Leichtle SW, Kaoutzanis C, Mouawad NJ et al (2013) Classic Whipple versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in the ACS NSQIP. J Surg Res 183:170–176PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Kneuertz PJ, Pitt HA, Bilimoria KY et al (2012) Risk of morbidity and mortality following hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1727–1735PubMedCrossRef Kneuertz PJ, Pitt HA, Bilimoria KY et al (2012) Risk of morbidity and mortality following hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1727–1735PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE et al (2010) Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210:6–16PubMedCrossRef Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE et al (2010) Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210:6–16PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M et al (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–937 (discussion 937–939)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M et al (2006) Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 244:931–937 (discussion 937–939)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13PubMedCrossRef Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G et al (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
go back to reference Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM et al (2000) Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 232:786–795PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Gouma DJ, van Geenen RC, van Gulik TM et al (2000) Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 232:786–795PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Makni A, Bedioui H, Jouini M et al (2011) Pancreaticojejunostomy vs. pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of comparative study. Minerva Chir 66:295–302PubMed Makni A, Bedioui H, Jouini M et al (2011) Pancreaticojejunostomy vs. pancreaticogastrostomy following pancreaticoduodenectomy: results of comparative study. Minerva Chir 66:295–302PubMed
22.
go back to reference Pecorelli N, Balzano G, Capretti G et al (2012) Effect of surgeon volume on outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy in a high-volume hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 16:518–523PubMedCrossRef Pecorelli N, Balzano G, Capretti G et al (2012) Effect of surgeon volume on outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy in a high-volume hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 16:518–523PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Grutzmann R, Ruckert F, Hippe-Davies N et al (2012) Evaluation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition of post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage in a high-volume center. Surgery 151:612–620PubMedCrossRef Grutzmann R, Ruckert F, Hippe-Davies N et al (2012) Evaluation of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definition of post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage in a high-volume center. Surgery 151:612–620PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Gawlas I, Sethi M, Winner M et al (2012) Readmission after pancreatic resection is not an appropriate measure of quality. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1781–1787PubMedCrossRef Gawlas I, Sethi M, Winner M et al (2012) Readmission after pancreatic resection is not an appropriate measure of quality. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1781–1787PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Parmar AD, Sheffield KM, Vargas GM et al (2013) Factors associated with delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 15:763–772PubMedCrossRef Parmar AD, Sheffield KM, Vargas GM et al (2013) Factors associated with delayed gastric emptying after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB 15:763–772PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Limitations of ACS-NSQIP in Reporting Complications for Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy: Underscoring the Need for a Pancreas-Specific Module
Authors
Irene Epelboym
Irmina Gawlas
James A. Lee
Beth Schrope
John A. Chabot
John D. Allendorf
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2439-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2014

World Journal of Surgery 6/2014 Go to the issue