Refining the predictive variables in the "Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System" (SURPAS): a descriptive analysis.
Journal
Patient safety in surgery
ISSN: 1754-9493
Titre abrégé: Patient Saf Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101319176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
02
04
2019
accepted:
05
08
2019
entrez:
28
8
2019
pubmed:
28
8
2019
medline:
28
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) is a parsimonious set of models providing accurate preoperative prediction of common adverse outcomes for individual patients. However, focus groups with surgeons and patients have developed a list of questions about and recommendations for how to further improve SURPAS's usability and usefulness. Eight issues were systematically evaluated to improve SURPAS. The eight issues were divided into three groups: concerns to be addressed through further analysis of the database; addition of features to the SURPAS tool; and the collection of additional outcomes. Standard multiple logistic regression analysis was performed using the 2005-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Participant Use File (ACS NSQIP PUF) to refine models: substitution of the preoperative sepsis variable with a procedure-related risk variable; testing of an indicator variable for multiple concurrent procedure codes in complex operations; and addition of outcomes to increase clinical applicability. Automated risk documentation in the electronic health record and a patient handout and supporting documentation were developed. Long term functional outcomes were considered. Model discrimination and calibration improved when preoperative sepsis was replaced with a procedure-related risk variable. Addition of an indicator variable for multiple concurrent procedures did not significantly improve the models. Models were developed for a revised set of eleven adverse postoperative outcomes that separated bleeding/transfusion from the cardiac outcomes, UTI from the other infection outcomes, and added a predictive model for unplanned readmission. Automated documentation of risk assessment in the electronic health record, visual displays of risk for providers and patients and an "About" section describing the development of the tool were developed and implemented. Long term functional outcomes were considered to be beyond the scope of the current SURPAS tool. Refinements to SURPAS were successful in improving the accuracy of the models, while reducing manual entry to five of the eight variables. Adding a predictor variable to indicate a complex operation with multiple current procedure codes did not improve the accuracy of the models. We developed graphical displays of risk for providers and patients, including a take-home handout and automated documentation of risk in the electronic health record. These improvements should facilitate easier implementation of SURPAS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) is a parsimonious set of models providing accurate preoperative prediction of common adverse outcomes for individual patients. However, focus groups with surgeons and patients have developed a list of questions about and recommendations for how to further improve SURPAS's usability and usefulness. Eight issues were systematically evaluated to improve SURPAS.
METHODS
METHODS
The eight issues were divided into three groups: concerns to be addressed through further analysis of the database; addition of features to the SURPAS tool; and the collection of additional outcomes. Standard multiple logistic regression analysis was performed using the 2005-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Participant Use File (ACS NSQIP PUF) to refine models: substitution of the preoperative sepsis variable with a procedure-related risk variable; testing of an indicator variable for multiple concurrent procedure codes in complex operations; and addition of outcomes to increase clinical applicability. Automated risk documentation in the electronic health record and a patient handout and supporting documentation were developed. Long term functional outcomes were considered.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Model discrimination and calibration improved when preoperative sepsis was replaced with a procedure-related risk variable. Addition of an indicator variable for multiple concurrent procedures did not significantly improve the models. Models were developed for a revised set of eleven adverse postoperative outcomes that separated bleeding/transfusion from the cardiac outcomes, UTI from the other infection outcomes, and added a predictive model for unplanned readmission. Automated documentation of risk assessment in the electronic health record, visual displays of risk for providers and patients and an "About" section describing the development of the tool were developed and implemented. Long term functional outcomes were considered to be beyond the scope of the current SURPAS tool.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Refinements to SURPAS were successful in improving the accuracy of the models, while reducing manual entry to five of the eight variables. Adding a predictor variable to indicate a complex operation with multiple current procedure codes did not improve the accuracy of the models. We developed graphical displays of risk for providers and patients, including a take-home handout and automated documentation of risk in the electronic health record. These improvements should facilitate easier implementation of SURPAS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31452684
doi: 10.1186/s13037-019-0208-2
pii: 208
pmc: PMC6702720
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
28Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors report no conflicts and do not derive any financial gain from SURPAS.
Références
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):448-55
pubmed: 18755566
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Oct 5;103(19):1436-43
pubmed: 21931068
Med Decis Making. 2014 May;34(4):443-53
pubmed: 24246564
Ann Surg. 2016 Jul;264(1):23-31
pubmed: 26928465
Ann Surg. 2016 Jul;264(1):10-22
pubmed: 26945154
Ann Surg. 2016 Jun;263(6):1042-8
pubmed: 26954897
Ann Surg. 2016 Jun;263(6):1039-41
pubmed: 27167560
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Apr;53(4):711-719.e5
pubmed: 28062349
Patient Saf Surg. 2018 Jun 4;12:12
pubmed: 29881458
Am J Surg. 2019 Jul 29;:null
pubmed: 31376949