Published in:
01-02-2018 | Original Scientific Report
Derivation, Validation and Application of a Pragmatic Risk Prediction Index for Benchmarking of Surgical Outcomes
Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 2/2018
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Despite the existence of multiple validated risk assessment and quality benchmarking tools in surgery, their utility outside of high-income countries is limited. We sought to derive, validate and apply a scoring system that is both (1) feasible, and (2) reliably predicts mortality in a middle-income country (MIC) context.
Methods
A 5-step methodology was used: (1) development of a de novo surgical outcomes database modeled around the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) in South Africa (SA dataset), (2) use of the resultant data to identify all predictors of in-hospital death with more than 90% capture indicating feasibility of collection, (3) use these predictors to derive and validate an integer-based score that reliably predicts in-hospital death in the 2012 ACS-NSQIP, (4) apply the score in the original SA dataset and demonstrate its performance, (5) identify threshold cutoffs of the score to prompt action and drive quality improvement.
Results
Following step one-three above, the 13 point Codman’s score was derived and validated on 211,737 and 109,079 patients, respectively, and includes: age 65 (1), partially or completely dependent functional status (1), preoperative transfusions ≥4 units (1), emergency operation (2), sepsis or septic shock (2) American Society of Anesthesia score ≥3 (3) and operative procedure (1–3). Application of the score to 373 patients in the SA dataset showed good discrimination and calibration to predict an in-hospital death. A Codman Score of 8 is an optimal cutoff point for defining expected and unexpected deaths.
Conclusion
We have designed a novel risk prediction score specific for a MIC context. The Codman Score can prove useful for both (1) preoperative decision-making and (2) benchmarking the quality of surgical care in MIC’s.