Key result
A continuous quality improvement program significantly reduced the surgical case fatality rate to 2.93% compared to 3.8% in control hospitals (OR 0.76).
Why the study?
Does a Continuous Quality Improvement program improve perioperative care and reduce surgical case fatality in Tanzanian hospitals?
Does a Continuous Quality Improvement program improve perioperative care and reduce surgical case fatality in Tanzanian hospitals?
Odds Ratio: 0.76 (95% CI 0.6–0.9)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.93% vs 3.8%
p-value: p=0.009
Specific interventions as part of a Continuous Quality Improvement program can improve immediate process outcomes and significantly reduce surgical case fatality rates in resource-limited settings.
INTRODUCTION: Surgical services are increasingly seen to reduce death and disability in Sub-Saharan Africa, where hospital-based mortality remains alarmingly high. This study explores two implementation approaches to improve the quality of perioperative care in a Tanzanian hospital. Effects were compared to a control group of two other hospitals in the region without intervention. METHODS: All hospitals conducted quality assessments with a Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Changes in immediate outcome indicators after one and two years were compared to final outcome indicators such as Anaesthetic Complication Rate and Surgical Case Fatality Rate. RESULTS: Immediate outcome indicators for Preoperative Care in the intervention hospital improved (52.5% in 2009; 84.2% in 2011, p<0.001). Postoperative Inpatient Care initially improved to then decline again (63.3% in 2009; 70% in 2010; 58.6% in 2011). In the control group, preoperative care declined from 50.8% (2009) to 32.8% (2011, p <0.001), while postoperative care did not significantly change. Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the intervention hospital declined (1.89% before intervention; 0.96% after intervention, p = 0.006). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the intervention hospital declined from 5.67% before intervention to 2.93% after intervention (p<0.0010). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the control group was 4% before intervention and 3.8% after intervention (p = 0.411). Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the control group was not available. DISCUSSION: Immediate outcome indicators initially improved, while at the same time final outcome declined (Surgical Case Fatality, Anaesthetic Complication Rate). Compared to the control group, final outcome improved more in the intervention hospital, although the effect was not significant over the whole study period. Documentation of final outcome indicators seemed inconsistent. Immediate outcome indicators seem more helpful to steer the Continuous Quality Improvement program. CONCLUSION: Specific interventions as part of Continuous Quality Improvement might lead to sustainable improvement of the quality of care, if embedded in a multi-faceted approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bosse et al. (2015) studied Major surgery (n=31,393). Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) program vs. Standard care (no CQI intervention) was evaluated on Surgical Case Fatality Rate (SCFR) (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.6-0.9, p=0.009). A continuous quality improvement program significantly reduced the surgical case fatality rate to 2.93% compared to 3.8% in control hospitals (OR 0.76).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: