News

Team planning cuts pancreatectomy readmissions


 

AT AHPBA 2014

MIAMI BEACH – A combination of teamwork and leadership led to a 50% reduction in readmission after pancreatectomy in a large academic facility.

The readmission rate at Indiana University Hospital fell from a high of 23% to just over 11% over 5 years – even though length of stay and mortality remained stable, Dr. Eugene Ceppa reported at the annual meeting of the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.

Dr. Henry A. Pitt

The multifaceted project made some progress during the first few years of implementation, said Dr. Ceppa of Indiana University Hospital, Indianapolis. But the biggest changes really came in years 4 and 5, after the team adopted its own version of a national readmission prevention plan, and created a "discharge coach" – a staff member dedicated to ensuring that patients were ready to leave the hospital, with plenty of support at home.

Studies generally show that pancreatectomy has a very high readmission rate, hovering around 18%. The situation was tolerated over the years, according to Dr. Henry Pitt, who coauthored the paper. But in 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced the idea that hospital readmissions were eating away at health care dollars.

In a landmark paper, Dr. Brian Jack and colleagues noted that only 13% of discharged patients needed repeat hospitalizations, but these patients used up to 60% of the $753 billion spent on discharge in 2003.

Project RED (ReEngineering Discharge), originating from Boston University Medical Center, suggested that reducing readmissions could save $5 billion each year. Originally focused on reducing readmissions for heart failure, Project RED has been successfully adapted to multiple models – including surgery.

Changes have not come about overnight, said Dr. Pitt, now chief quality officer for Temple University Health System in Philadelphia. "There was denial at first that readmission was a problem," he said in an interview. "Then there was a period of time when there was acceptance but no idea of how to fix it. Now we are beginning to do so."

As pay-for-performance became ever more important, pancreatic surgeons at Indiana University Hospital decided to attack the problem of readmission for their pancreatectomy patients. Over a 5-year period, from 2007 to 2012, they implemented a number of reforms, beginning with renewed efforts to decrease surgical morbidity – especially their 24% rate of surgical site infections after pancreatectomy. Dr. Pitt and his colleagues had already shown that these infections were a leading cause of surgical morbidity, and reducing them was a logical first step toward reducing readmission.

The next step was to create a discharge team that would work cooperatively to make sure patients were in optimal condition to leave the hospital. The Readmission Quality Improvement Team consisted of physicians, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, case managers, pharmacists, and dietitians. Because of their efforts, the number of pancreatectomy patients discharged with some kind of home health care support increased from 20% to 50%.

At the same time, the surgeons made a policy change: There would be no readmissions without the approval of the attending surgeon. Because patients often traveled far to the university hospital, they would frequently go to their local hospitals when problems arose after they went home.

"A lot of the calls to us from patients would go to residents," Dr. Pitt said. "The default was to send them to their local emergency department, because the patients were so far away. And then we would get calls for transfers. We said that house staff would no longer have the authority to make those admissions. If they thought readmission was necessary, they had to call the attending surgeon. Just improving that decision-making process made a big difference, with fewer people going to the ED in the first place. Often it was just a matter of reassuring the patient."

By 2010, readmissions had dropped from 24% to 16%. In 2011, the team employed its own adaptation of Project RED. Each discharge included an 11-point checklist of things that had to be completed before a patient could leave. Those tasks include the following:

• Reconcile medications.

• Reconcile discharge plan with national guidelines.

• Make follow-up appointments.

• Follow up on any outstanding tests.

• Arrange for postdischarge services.

• Explain to the patient what do if a problem arises.

• Conduct patient education.

• Communicate discharge information to primary care physician.

• Make a follow-up call within 3 days of discharge.

The final puzzle piece was the discharge coach, Dr. Pitt said. The coach is a highly experienced nurse whose job it is to make sure each patient receives consistent discharge care and follow-through.

Pages

Recommended Reading

IBD linked to increased risk of certain cancers
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Complications after gastric cancer resection portend poor outcomes
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Biomarker testing for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: role of the pathologist in community practice
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Endoscopic mucosal resection new gold standard for esophageal adenocarcinoma
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Esophagectomy treatment response nodes provide prognostic information
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Randomized trial of vitamin B6 for preventing hand-foot syndrome from capecitabine chemotherapy
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Asymptomatic primary squamous cell carcinoma of the liver
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Liquid biopsies may solve GIST biopsy problem
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Role for GIST genotyping stirs controversy
MDedge Hematology and Oncology
Intraoperative ultrasound can change approach to liver resection
MDedge Hematology and Oncology