Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) represent the most common cause of serious perioperative morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to identify risk factors for MACCE in a broad surgical population with intermediate-to-high surgery-specific risk and to build and validate a model to predict the risk of MACCE. A prospective, multicentre study of patients undergoing surgical procedures under general or regional anaesthesia in 23 hospitals. The main outcome was the occurrence of at least one perioperative MACCE, defined as any of the following complications from admittance to discharge: cardiac death, cerebrovascular death, non-fatal cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, new cardiac arrhythmia, angina, or stroke. The MACCE predictive index was based on β-coefficients and validated in an external data set. Of 3387 patients recruited, 146 (4.3%) developed at least one MACCE. The regression model identified seven independent risk factors for MACCE: history of coronary artery disease, history of chronic congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, history of cerebrovascular disease, preoperative abnormal ECG, intraoperative hypotension, and blood transfusion. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 75.9% (95% confidence interval, 71.2–80.6%). The risk score based on seven objective and easily assessed factors can accurately predict MACCE occurrence after non-cardiac surgery in a population at intermediate-to-high surgery-specific risk.

Background: Advocates for quality and safety have called for healthcare that is patient-centred and decision-making that involves patients. Objective: The aim of the paper is to explore the barriers and facilitators to patient-centred care in the hospital discharge process. Methods: A qualitative study using purposive sampling of 192 individual interviews and 26 focus group interviews was conducted in five European Union countries with patients and/or family members, hospital physicians and nurses, and community general practitioners and nurses. A modified Grounded Theory approach was used to analyse the data. Results: The barriers and facilitators were classified into 15 categories from which four themes emerged: (1) healthcare providers do not sufficiently prioritise discharge consultations with patients and family members due to time restraints and competing care obligations; (2) discharge communication varied from instructing patients and family members to shared decision-making; (3) patients often feel unprepared for discharge, and postdischarge care is not tailored to individual patient needs and preferences; and (4) pressure on available hospital beds and community resources affect the discharge process. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that involvement of patients and families in the preparations for discharge is determined by the extent to which care providers are willing and able to accommodate patients’ and families’ capabilities, needs and preferences. Future interventions should be directed at healthcare providers’ attitudes and their organisation's leadership, with a focus on improving communication among care providers, patients and families, and between hospital and community care providers.

There is a growing impetus to reorganize the hospital discharge process to reduce avoidable readmissions and costs. The aim of this study was to provide insight into hospital discharge problems and underlying causes, and to give an overview of solutions that guide providers and policy-makers in improving hospital discharge. The Intervention Mapping framework was used. First, a problem analysis studying the scale, causes, and consequences of ineffective hospital discharge was carried out. The analysis was based on primary data from 26 focus group interviews and 321 individual interviews with patients and relatives, and involved hospital and community care providers. Second, improvements in terms of intervention outcomes, performance objectives and change objectives were specified. Third, 220 experts were consulted and a systematic review of effective discharge interventions was carried out to select theory-based methods and practical strategies required to achieve change and better performance. Ineffective discharge is related to factors at the level of the individual care provider, the patient, the relationship between providers, and the organisational and technical support for care providers. Providers can reduce hospital readmission rates and adverse events by focusing on high-quality discharge information, well-coordinated care, and direct and timely communication with their counterpart colleagues. Patients, or their carers, should participate in the discharge process and be well aware of their health status and treatment. Assessment by hospital care providers whether discharge information is accurate and understood by patients and their community counterparts, are important examples of overcoming identified barriers to effective discharge. Discharge templates, medication reconciliation, a liaison nurse or pharmacist, regular site visits and teach-back are identified as effective and promising strategies to achieve the desired behavioural and environmental change. This study provides a comprehensive guiding framework for providers and policy-makers to improve patient handover from hospital to primary care.

Research from JAMA Surgery — Surgical Site Infection in Elective Operations for Colorectal Cancer After the Application of Preventive Measures

Background: Handover practices at hospital discharge are relatively under-researched, particularly as regards the specific risks and additional requirements for handovers involving vulnerable patients with limited language, cognitive and social resources. Objective: To explore handover practices at discharge and to focus on the patients’ role in handovers and on the potential additional risks for vulnerable patients. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with patients, hospital professionals and primary care professionals in two hospitals and their associated primary care centres in Catalonia, Spain. Results: We identified handover practices at discharge that potentially put patients at risk. Patients did not feel empowered in the handover but were expected to transfer information between care providers. Professionals identified lack of medication reconciliation at discharge, loss of discharge information, and absence of plans for follow-up care in the community as quality and safety problems for discharge handovers. These occurred for all patients, but appeared to be more frequent and have a greater negative effect in patients with limited language comprehension and/or lack of family and social support systems. Conclusions: Discharge handovers are often haphazard. Healthcare professionals do not consider current handover practices safe, with patients expected to transfer information without being empowered to understand and act on it. This can lead to misinformation, omission or duplication of tests or interventions and, potentially, patient harm. Vulnerable patients may be at greater risk given their limited language, cognitive and social resources. Patient safety at discharge could benefit from strategies to enhance patient education and promote empowerment.

Background: Organizational culture is seen as having a growing impact on quality and safety of health care, but its impact on hospital to community patient discharge is relatively unknown. Objectives: To explore aspects of organizational culture to develop a deeper understanding of the discharge process. Research Design: A qualitative study of stakeholders in the discharge process. Grounded Theory was used to analyze the data. Subjects: In 5 European Union countries, 192 individual and 25 focus group interviews were conducted with patients and relatives, hospital physicians, hospital nurses, general practitioners, and community nurses. Results: Three themes emerged representing aspects of organizational culture: a fragmented hospital to primary care interface, undervaluing administrative tasks relative to clinical tasks in the discharge process, and lack of reflection on the discharge process or process improvement. Nine categories were identified: inward focus of hospital care providers, lack of awareness to needs, skills, and work patterns of the professional counterpart, lack of a collaborative attitude, relationship between hospital and primary care providers, providing care in a “here and now” situation, administrative work considered to be burdensome, negative attitude toward feedback, handovers at discharge ruled by habits, and appreciating and integrating new practices. Conclusions: On the basis of the data, we hypothesize that the extent to which hospital care providers value handovers and the outreach to community care providers is critical to effective hospital discharge. Community care providers often are insufficiently informed about patient outcomes. Ongoing challenges with patient discharge often remain unspoken with opportunities for improvement overlooked. Interventions that address organizational culture as a key factor in discharge improvement efforts are needed.