|
|
|
Michigan State University |
|
Department of Surgery |
|
Cheryl I. Anderson, RN, MSA, |
|
D. Chris Coffey, MD, Richard E. Dean, MD |
|
March 2001 |
|
|
|
|
Surgeons receive clinically profiled information
from hospitals and insurers |
|
Based on a minimal cases, cost-based |
|
Resident clinical issues are reported, only when
problems arise |
|
Educational issues may not surface |
|
Trends may be unrecognized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unique study environment to conduct Clinical |
|
Profiling: |
|
Access to all hospital and office charts |
|
Uniformity of office medical records |
|
Residents and Surgeons are all MSU |
|
Nurses are employed by Department |
|
|
|
|
To use simple, low cost methods, that include
all faculty/residents |
|
Confidential, Non-punitive |
|
To involve residents in the profiling process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any process that trends patient experiences |
|
or outcomes over time and compares |
|
those results to others, accepted |
|
standards, or benchmarks |
|
|
|
|
Phase I.
Morbidity and Mortality Conference |
|
Phase II. Nurse Reports |
|
Phase III. Resident Reports |
|
|
|
|
PHASE I. |
|
Morbidity and Mortality Conference |
|
|
|
A.
Standardized Peer Review |
|
B.
High Volume Surgical Procedures |
|
C.
Common Post Operative Complications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each
case presented at M & M is peer-reviewed, using a standardized
format |
|
Why? Conclusion: • What? Action: |
|
Acceptable None |
|
Misdiagnosis Refer
Internally |
|
Delay Refer
Externally |
|
Decision Needs
Education |
|
Technical |
|
Health System |
|
Knowledge |
|
|
|
|
All peer-review comments/impressions of the case
are returned to faculty or resident |
|
Feedback is reported quarterly and any
differences are re-evaluated |
|
Complication Rate: (by Qtr) |
|
Total # of technical errors |
|
Total # of cases done |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breast
• Appendectomy |
|
Cholecystectomy • Thyroid/Parathyroid |
|
Hernia Repair • Central Venous Catheter |
|
Appendectomy • Tube Thoracostomy |
|
|
|
Complication rates calculated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 % reduction in variety of preoperative
antibiotics (ABX) prescribed |
|
21 % decline in use of post operative ABX |
|
LOS declined by 2.1 days for acute appendicitis
with abscess/perforation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residents participated in algorithm development |
|
Observed the gradual change of faculty toward
adherence to algorithm; changed resident practice |
|
Witnessed how individualism in surgery can
affect patient outcomes and result in higher costs |
|
|
|
|
Wound Complications |
|
DVT/ Pulmonary Embolus |
|
Cardiac Events |
|
Respiratory Complications |
|
Post Op Bleed |
|
Iatrogenic Injuries |
|
Intra-abdominal abscess |
|
|
|
|
PHASE II. |
|
Nursing Reports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complication definitions varied |
|
Weekly telephone calls, office visits |
|
Expanded information collected |
|
Most complications were wound problems, i.e.,
infections, seromas, hematomas, cellulitis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHASE III. |
|
Resident Reports of Adverse Events |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defined adverse events |
|
Residents were asked to assess system or process
problems that occurred in patient care |
|
Weekly meetings were held with residents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residents instrumental in early identification
and resolution of problems |
|
Participated in an organized multi-disciplinary
approach to problem solving |
|
Adverse events expanded the meaning of
“complication” to include broader clinical issues, i.e., process &
system problems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data are more complete and accurate because we
are comparing to our department |
|
Results are reported in a timely manner |
|
Faculty and residents become involved because
profiling is non-punitive and self-improving |
|
Developed a low cost, effective system for
profiling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinical profiling can improve resident
education |
|
By actively involving residents in the process,
it can serve as an educational tool that residents can carry into practice |
|