PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10856846

Quality indicators in ambulatory surgery. A prospective study.

Abstract

Introduction: Ambulatory Surgery has emerged and developed in Spain in a similar way as in other occidental countries. Once established as a model for surgical care, results must be improved using objective quality indicators to assure minimal morbidity, efficient use of resources and satisfaction of patients and family. Objective: To provide a list of quality assessment indicators in Ambulatory Surgery and to discuss the necessity of obtaining a general consensus regarding the complexity of both the operations and the patients undergoing surgery. Design: Prospective and descriptive study. Patients and Methods: The study was performed on 833 ambulatory patients operated on in the Ambulatory Surgical Unit of the Can Misses Hospital of Ibiza. Surgical specialities involved were General Surgery, Ophthalmology, Orthopaedics, Urology, Gynaecology, and E.N.T. All diagnoses and proceedings were classified according to the CIE-9 and DGR systems, showing as an example the codes related to the General Surgery department. Quality Indicators evaluated were: (a) unplanned admission index; (b) re-admission index; (c) emergency department consultations; (d) cancellation index; (e) substitution index; and (f) postoperative pain evaluation. Results: Specialities involved were: Ophthalmology 277 patients (33.2%), General Surgery 189 (22.8%), Orthopaedics 142 (17%), Urology 90 (10.8%), E.N.T. 79 (9.5%) and Gynaecology 56 (6.7%). Unplanned Admission Index was 7.2%; Re-Admission Index 0.4%; Emergency department consultation 1.6%; Cancellation Index 3.3% and Substitution Index 70%. The reasons for unplanned admission were due to specific complications in 36 cases (60.1%), followed by those secondary to an inadequate selection of the patient in 22 cases (36.6%). Conclusions: It is necessary to apply a series of Quality Indicators in Ambulatory Surgery. Their systematic evaluation may help us define national standards in order to continuously improve our results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Morales, N Esteve, A Carmona, F Garcia, A Sanchez, P Olesti. 2000-07-01. Quality indicators in ambulatory surgery. A prospective study.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0966-6532(00)00048-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗