Skip to main content

Wanting to survive more than just 30 days


by: Gretchen Schwarze, @GretchenSchwa10

My husband, also a surgeon, was recently discussing donor-nephrectomy with a healthy 65 year-old woman in his transplant clinic.  He told her the 30-day survival for this operation was excellent.  She was shocked he would quote such metrics, “I don’t want to live for just 30 days!”  Yet for years, we in surgery have judged our successes by the number of patients who don’t die within 30 days of surgery.

I know it is easy to find examples of surgeons behaving badly over a postoperative patient whose death seems to threaten his “numbers,” but as a surgeon who has been there I can tell you that it is viscerally painful to watch a patient you operated on succumb to postoperative complications.  Deep notions of error and responsibility are ingrained in our culture and are reinforced in many ways including M&M conferences and NSQIP (National Safety Quality Improvement Program) reports. While I’m all for improving safety and quality, I shudder to think about the consequences of 30-day mortality reporting for our older patients when increasingly our successes and failures are measured (and reported) by who is alive and who is dead.

Here’s an example of why I am worried.  One newer measure of safety in surgery is “failure to rescue.” (FTR)  Studies show complication rates for major operations are actually pretty constant across hospitals with varying levels of quality however; mortality differences between low and high performers come from the ability to “rescue” patients with postoperative complications, i.e. mortality differences derive from whether the patient is able to survive the complication.  

This measure morphed precariously in a (very well done) study that matched the health status of surgical patients with DNR orders to those without and demonstrated a substantially higher postoperative mortality for patients with DNR orders. The authors called this “failure to pursue rescue.” Sheesh, if you want to get a surgeon to do something, tell him that not doing it would constitute failure – this is the language we speak! If anything, the mortality difference demonstrates a success in honoring patient preferences but the characterization of death as the worst possible outcome doesn’t recognize this important difference.

We are told that these measures are risk-adjusted but risk adjustment doesn’t adequately manage the needs of patients who would benefit from palliative operations or patients who are high-risk and would authentically prefer to take their chances in the operating room.  Risk adjustment is probably not the answer, stratification accounting for palliative operations and robust measures of patient engagement would be more aligned with the goals of patients and their families who likely don’t value “just living to 30 days.”

The National Quality Forum (NQF) is proposing 30-day risk adjusted mortality following CABG (heart bypass surgery) as a quality metric. This measure is up for appeal until December 12.   While the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has used this metric for years for their internal database, formalization of this metric for public reporting threatens to exacerbate its unintended consequences.  

I recently ran a “town hall meeting” at the American College of Surgeons annual Clinical Congress about this issue which involved some pretty treacherous terrain: surgeons were clear that mortality measures are increasingly influencing both their pre and postoperative surgical decisions.  


The 30-day metric is a game-able metric that harms patients and families and the surgeon patient relationship.  It also fails to capture important safety information such as the patient who has a straight-forward postoperative course is scored equivalently to one who has a prolonged ICU stay and is transferred to palliative care on postoperative day 31.  I hope the National Quality Forum will reconsider their decision and focus on measures that are more aligned with patient-reported goals.

Comments

Joshua Uy said…
Wonderful post and thoughts as always. The challenge is being flexible in our communication with patients that reflects patient thought process instead of research process. It takes a lot of effort to translate research outcomes into outcomes that a in patient oriented language and thought. That is an art.

Looking forward to hearing you when you come to Penn in January!
Dan Matlock said…
Gretchen,

Wonderful thoughts. Your position as an insider who truly understands all the pressures makes you an ideal person to change the culture.

And that is what it will take in my opinion - culture change.

A culture myopically focused solely on survival not only positions itself to do significant harm to a patient and family by violating their right to themselves.

While we all want technically sound surgeons, we also want a health care system that respects us as free persons as well.

Maybe we need a composite measure that combines technical competence with patient-centeredness.
Ana Berlin said…
Applause to Dr. Schwarze for this thoughtful post. As a fellow surgeon, I have seconded her appeal to the NQF to reconsider 30-day mortality for CABG as a quality metric due to the potential unintended consequences of it use. While operative mortality is important, the overemphasis of 30-day outcomes may alter surgeons’ treatment decisions in ways that are not in the best interest of patients. Despite being “risk-adjusted,” this metric cannot account for the preop wishes of patients who desire surgery, but who place reasonable limitations on their postop care. This creates a disincentive for surgeons to offer surgery, even when it offers potential benefits. In addition, when patients wish to limit ongoing heroic care required to sustain life for 30 postop days, this metric puts surgeons in a double bind between honoring patients’ preferences and optimizing their reportable “quality” outcomes. In the interest of true quality, the NQF should champion the efforts of surgeons to act as patient advocates, as opposed to placing ethical barriers to patient-centered behavior.
Jason Johanning said…
Kudos Gretchen for putting it on the table. Normal people care more about being alive whole in one year living at home than they do about surviving 30 days.

With that said, we have to acknowledge the perverse incentive surgeons have to operate on frail patients near death. What do you lose? What do you gain??

Jason M. Johanning, MD, MD
Decent way of presenting the blog. I like it!

Usmle Tutor

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Palliative Care: A Podcast with Diane Meier

There are few names more closely associated with palliative care than Diane Meier.  She is an international leader of palliative care, a MacArthur "genius" awardee, and amongst many other leadership roles, the CEO of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC).  We were lucky enough to snag Diane for our podcast to talk about everything we always wanted to ask her, including:
What keeps her up at night?Does palliative care need a national strategy and if so why and what would it look like?The history of CAPC and the leadership centersAdvice that she has for graduating fellows who want to continue to move palliative care forward as they start their new careersWhat she imagines palliative care will look like in 10 or 15 years?What is the biggest threat facing palliative care? So take a listen and if you want to dive a little deeper, here are two articles that we discussed during the podcast:
A National Strategy For Palliative Care. Health Affairs 2017Palliative Care Leadership…

Elderhood: Podcast with Louise Aronson

In this week's podcast we talk with Louise Aronson MD, MFA, Professor of Geriatrics at UCSF about her new book Elderhood, available for purchase now for delivery on the release date June 11th.

We are one of the first to interview Louise, as she has interviews scheduled with other lesser media outlets to follow (CBS This Morning and Fresh Air with Terry...somebody).

This book is tremendously rich, covering a history of aging/geriatrics, Louise's own journey as a geriatrician facing burnout, aging and death of family of Louise's members, insightful stories of patients, and more.

We focus therefore on the 3 main things we think our listeners and readers will be interested in.

First - why the word "Elder" and "Elderhood" when JAGS/AGS and others recently decided that the preferred terminology was "older adult"?

Second - Robert Butler coined the term ageism in 1969 - where do we see ageism in contemporary writing/thinking?  We focus on Louise's…

Psychedelics: Podcast with Ira Byock

In this week's podcast, we talk with Dr. Ira Byock, a leading palliative care physician, author, and public advocate for improving care through the end of life.

Ira Byock wrote a provocative and compelling paper in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management titled, "Taking Psychedelics Seriously."

In this podcast we challenge Ira Byock about the use of psychedelics for patients with serious and life-limiting illness.   Guest host Josh Biddle (UCSF Palliative care fellow) asks, "Should clinicians who prescribe psychedelics try them first to understand what their patient's are going through?" The answer is "yes" -- read or listen on for more!

While you're reading, I'll just go over and lick this toad.

-@AlexSmithMD





You can also find us on Youtube!



Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes Google Play MusicSoundcloudStitcher
Transcript
Eric: Welcome to the GeriPal Podcast. This is Eric Widera.

Alex: This is Alex Smith.

Eric: Alex, I spy someone in our …