Introduction Older adults with an acute moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) or pneumonia are generally treated in hospitals causing risk of iatrogenic harm such as... Show moreIntroduction Older adults with an acute moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) or pneumonia are generally treated in hospitals causing risk of iatrogenic harm such as functional decline and delirium. These hospitalisations are often a consequence of poor collaboration between regional care partners, the lack of (acute) diagnostic and treatment possibilities in primary care, and the presence of financial barriers. We will evaluate the implementation of an integrated regional care pathway (‘The Hague RTI Care Bridge’) developed with the aim to treat and coordinate care for these patients outside the hospital.Methods and analysis This is a prospective mixed methods study. Participants will be older adults (age≥65 years) with an acute moderate-to-severe LRTI or pneumonia treated outside the hospital (care pathway group) versus those treated in the hospital (control group). In addition, patients, their informal caregivers and treating physicians will be asked about their experiences with the care pathway. The primary outcome of this study will be the feasibility of the care pathway, which is defined as the percentage of patients treated outside the hospital, according to the care pathway, whom fully complete their treatment without the need for hospitalisation within 30 days of follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the safety of the care pathway (30-day mortality and occurrence of complications (readmissions, delirium, falls) within 30 days); the satisfaction, usability and acceptance of the care pathway; the total number of days of bedridden status or hospitalisation; sleep quantity and quality; functional outcomes and quality of life.Ethics and dissemination The Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden The Hague Delft (reference number N22.078) has confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. Show less
Dregmans, E.; Kaal, A.G.; Meziyerh, S.; Kolfschoten, N.E.; Aken, M.O. van; Schippers, E.F.; ... ; Nieuwkoop, C. van 2022
IMPORTANCE Misdiagnosis of infection is among the most commonly made diagnostic errors and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how often misdiagnosed site of... Show moreIMPORTANCE Misdiagnosis of infection is among the most commonly made diagnostic errors and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how often misdiagnosed site of infection occurs and its association with clinical outcomes.OBJECTIVES To evaluate the discrepancy between admission and discharge site of infection diagnoses among patients with suspected bacteremia, to explore factors associated with discrepant diagnoses, and to evaluate the association with clinical outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study used electronic records of 1477 adult patients who were admitted to the hospital for suspected bacteremia from April 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, and who had blood cultures taken at the emergency department at Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, the Netherlands. Suspected infection sites were classified into 8 categories at admission and discharge. Misdiagnosed site was defined as a discrepancy between the suspected site of infection at admission and at discharge.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Clinical outcomes were 30-day mortality, intensive care unit admission, length of hospital stay, and antibiotic use, analyzed with logistic and linear regression. Risk factors for misdiagnosed site were determined using regression analysis.RESULTS A total of 1477 patients (820 [55.5%] male; median [IQR] age, 68 [56-78] years) were analyzed. The rate of misdiagnosed site of infection was 11.6% (171 of 1477); 3.1% of all patients (46 of 1477) ultimately had no infection. No association was found between misdiagnosis and 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.8; 95% CI, 03-1.9; P = .60), intensive care unit admission (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.6-3.0; P = .54), and hospital length of stay (adjusted increase of stay, 15.5%; 95% CI, -3.1% to 37.7%; P = .11). Misdiagnosed site was associated with receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics (aOR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.8; P < .001). Older age, dementia, a positive urine sediment test result without urinary symptoms, and suspicion of an intravascular, central nervous system, or bone and joint infection were risk factors for misdiagnosed site of infection.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study, misdiagnosed site of infection occurred in 1 of 9 patients and was not associated with worse short-term clinical outcomes. Clinicians should be aware of risk factors associated with misdiagnosed site of infection and potential inappropriate antibiotic use. Show less
Govaert, J.A.; Fiocco, M.; Dijk, W.A. van; Kolfschoten, N.E.; Prins, H.A.; Dekker, J.W.T.; ... ; Dutch Value Based Hlthcare 2017
Objective: To compare actual 90-day hospital costs between elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter setting stratified for operative risk.... Show moreObjective: To compare actual 90-day hospital costs between elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter setting stratified for operative risk. Background: Laparoscopic resection has developed as a commonly accepted surgical procedure for colorectal cancer. There are conflicting data on the influence of laparoscopy on hospital costs, without separate analyses based on operative risk. Methods: Retrospective analyses using a population-based database (Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit). All elective resections for a T1-3N0-2M0 stage colorectal cancer were included between 2010 and 2012 in 29 Dutch hospitals. Operative risk was stratified for age (<75 years or 75 years) and ASA status (I-II/III-IV). Ninety-day hospital costs were measured uniformly in all hospitals based on time-driven activity-based costing. Results: Total 90-day hospital costs ranged from s10474 to s20865 in the predefined subgroups. For colon cancer surgery (N.4202), laparoscopic resection was less expensive than open resection in all subgroups, savings because of laparoscopy ranged from s409 (<75 years ASA I-II) to s1932 (75 years ASA I-II). In patients 75 years and ASA I-II, laparoscopic resection was associated with 46% less mortality (P . 0.05), 41% less severe complications (P < 0.001), 25% less hospital stay (P . 0.013), and 65% less ICU stay (P < 0.001). For rectal cancer surgery (N.2328), all laparoscopic subgroups had significantly higher total hospital costs, ranging from s501 (<75 years ASA I-II) to s2515 ( 75 years ASA III-IV). Conclusions: Laparoscopic resection resulted in the largest cost reduction in patients over 75 years with ASA I-II undergoing colonic resection, and the largest cost increase in patients over 75 years with ASA III-IV undergoing rectal resection as compared with an open approach. Keywords: colorectal cancer, hospital costs, laparoscopy, population based registry, resection, tumor Show less
Data from clinical audits such as the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit, can be used for valid and meaningful feedback information, which may support improvement of quality of care. First, we showed... Show moreData from clinical audits such as the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit, can be used for valid and meaningful feedback information, which may support improvement of quality of care. First, we showed that the continuous feedback cycle of clinical auditing has an autonomous, positive effect on the quality of surgical care. Second, we describe how data from clinical audits can be used to monitor and improve national practice and performance in colorectal cancer care, especially for high-risk patients. Third, we describe how clinical auditing can be used for the evaluation and monitoring of the implementation of new techniques, such as laparoscopic surgery, on a national level. We demonstrate that, although there is a large hospital variation in the use of laparoscopic surgery, this does not explain the variation in outcome. Last, we investigate how data can be used to evaluate quality of care and give transparency to all stakeholders. As the various aspects of quality of care can be strongly interrelated, quality of care may best be represented using composite-measures. These composite measures can be used by all stakeholders to evaluate quality of care as a whole. The methodologies described in this thesis may be used in many other clinical audits. Show less
OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to identify risk factors for postoperative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer. We looked specifically at patients ≥ 80 years of age in whom... Show moreOBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to identify risk factors for postoperative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer. We looked specifically at patients ≥ 80 years of age in whom a nonelective colon cancer resection was performed. STUDY DESIGN Observational study. METHODS We included data from 6,161 patients who underwent colon cancer surgery in 2010 in a Dutch hospital; a nonelective colon cancer resection was performed in 1,172 of these patients. Risk factors for postoperative mortality were identified using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. We studied elective and nonelective intestinal resections separately in different age groups. RESULTS Mortality in the total study population was 4.9%. Mortality increased with age in patients who underwent either elective or nonelective intestinal resection. For patients ≥ 80 years of age who underwent nonelective intestinal resection, each additional risk factor doubled the mortality risk. In patients aged ≥ 80 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of class ≥ 3 who underwent a left hemicolectomy or 'other' intestinal resection, the postoperative mortality rate was 41%; in patients of the same age without additional risk factors this was 7%. CONCLUSIONS In patients ≥ 80 years of age with 2 or more additional risk factors, nonelective intestinal resection should be considered a high-risk procedure with a mortality risk of up to 41%. This result can be used in clinical decision making concerning treatment and in providing information for patients and their families. Show less
Gooiker, G.A.; Kolfschoten, N.E.; Bastiaannet, E.; Velde, C.J.H. van de; Eddes, E.H.; Harst, E. van der; ... ; Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit Gr 2013
Aims: The aim of the study was to assess which factors contribute to postoperative mortality, especially in elderly patients who undergo emergency colon cancer resections, using a nationwide... Show moreAims: The aim of the study was to assess which factors contribute to postoperative mortality, especially in elderly patients who undergo emergency colon cancer resections, using a nationwide population-based database. Methods: 6,161 patients (1,172 nonelective) who underwent a colon cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands were included. Risk factors for postoperative mortality were investigated using a multivariate logistic regression model for different age groups, elective and nonelective patients separately. Results: For both elective and nonelective patients, mortality risk increased with increasing age. For nonelective elderly patients (80+ years), each additional risk factor increased the mortality risk. For a nonelective patient of 80+ years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of III+ and a left hemicolectomy or extended resection, postoperative mortality rate was 41% compared with 7% in patients without additional risk factors. Conclusions: For elderly patients with two or more additional risk factors, a nonelective resection should be considered a high-risk procedure with a mortality risk of up to 41%. The results of this study could be used to adequately inform patient and family and should have consequences for composing an operative team. Show less
Dekker, J.W.T.; Gooiker, G.A.; Geest, L.G.M. van der; Kolfschoten, N.E.; Struikmans, H.; Putter, H.; ... ; Quality Information Syst 2012
AIMS: We propose a summarizing measure for outcome indicators, representing the proportion of patients for whom all desired short-term outcomes of care (a 'textbook outcome') is realized. The aim... Show moreAIMS: We propose a summarizing measure for outcome indicators, representing the proportion of patients for whom all desired short-term outcomes of care (a 'textbook outcome') is realized. The aim of this study was to investigate hospital variation in the proportion of patients with a 'textbook outcome' after colon cancer resections in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients who underwent a colon cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands were included in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. A textbook outcome was defined as hospital survival, radical resection, no reintervention, no ostomy, no adverse outcome and a hospital stay < 14 days. We calculated the number of hospitals with a significantly higher (positive outlier) or lower (negative outlier) Observed/Expected (O/E) textbook outcome than average. As quality measures may be more discriminative in a low-risk population, analyses were repeated for low-risk patients only. RESULTS: A total of 5582 patients, treated in 82 hospitals were included. Average textbook outcome was 49% (range 26-71%). Eight hospitals were identified as negative outliers. In these hospitals a 'textbook outcome' was realized in 35% vs. 52% in average hospitals (p < 0.01). In a sub-analysis for low-risk patients, only one additional negative outlier was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The textbook outcome, representing the proportion of patients with a perfect hospitalization, gives a simple comprehensive summary of hospital performance, while preventing indicator driven practice. Therewith the 'textbook outcome' is meaningful for patients, providers, insurance companies and healthcare inspectorate. Show less
OBJECTIVE:: To investigate the safety of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections in a nationwide population-based study. BACKGROUND:: Although laparoscopic techniques are increasingly used in... Show moreOBJECTIVE:: To investigate the safety of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections in a nationwide population-based study. BACKGROUND:: Although laparoscopic techniques are increasingly used in colorectal cancer surgery, little is known on results outside trials. With the fast introduction of laparoscopic resection (LR), questions were raised about safety. METHODS:: Of all patients who underwent an elective colorectal cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands, 93% were included in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Short-term outcome after LR, open resection (OR), and converted LR were compared in a generalized linear mixed model. We further explored hospital differences in LR and conversion rates. RESULTS:: A total of 7350 patients, treated in 90 hospitals, were included. LR rate was 41% with a conversion rate of 15%. After adjustment for differences in case-mix, LR was associated with a lower risk of mortality (odds ratio 0.63, P < 0.01), major morbidity (odds ratio 0.72, P < 0.01), any complications (odds ratio 0.74, P < 0.01), hospital stay more than 14 days (odds ratio 0.71, P < 0.01), and irradical resections (odds ratio 0.68, P < 0.01), compared to OR. Outcome after conversion was similar to OR (P > 0.05). A large variation in LR and conversion rates among hospitals was found; however, the difference in outcome associated with operative techniques was not influenced by hospital of treatment. CONCLUSIONS:: Use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands is safe and results are better in short-term outcome than open surgery, irrespective of the hospital of treatment. Outcome after conversion was similar to OR. Show less
AIMS The purpose of this study was to determine how expected mortality based on case-mix varies between colorectal cancer patients treated in non-teaching, teaching and university hospitals, or... Show moreAIMS The purpose of this study was to determine how expected mortality based on case-mix varies between colorectal cancer patients treated in non-teaching, teaching and university hospitals, or high, intermediate and low-volume hospitals in the Netherlands. MATERIAL AND METHODS We used the database of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit 2010. Factors predicting mortality after colon and rectum carcinoma resections were identified using logistic regression models. Using these models, expected mortality was calculated for each patient. RESULTS 8580 patients treated in 90 hospitals were included in the analysis. For colon carcinoma, hospitals' expected mortality ranged from 1.5 to 14%. Average expected mortality was lower in patients treated in high-volume hospitals than in low-volume hospitals (5.0 vs. 4.3%, p < 0.05). For rectum carcinoma, hospitals expected mortality varied from 0.5 to 7.5%. Average expected mortality was higher in patients treated in non-teaching and teaching hospitals than in university hospitals (2.7 and 2.3 vs. 1.3%, p < 0.01). Furthermore, rectum carcinoma patients treated in high-volume hospitals had a higher expected mortality than patients treated in low-volume hospitals (2.6 vs. 2.2% p < 0.05). We found no differences in risk-adjusted mortality. CONCLUSIONS High-risk patients are not evenly distributed between hospitals. Using the expected mortality as an integrated measure for case-mix can help to gain insight in where high-risk patients go. The large variation in expected mortality between individual hospitals, hospital types and volume groups underlines the need for risk-adjustment when comparing hospital performances. Show less
Broek, C.B.M. van den; Kolfschoten, N.E.; Gijn, W. van; Bastiaannet, E.; Pahlman, L.; Harling, H.; ... ; EURECCA Consortium 2011
![[Nonelective colon cancer resections in elderly patients: results from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit]](/sites/all/modules/custom/islandora_solr_search/images/defaultimg.png?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=7636421d21f6ca757a88&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=6)
