Background To determine whether a bariatric surgical procedure is associated with a reduction in healthcare utilisation among patients with obesity and high pre‐procedural healthcare needs. Methods Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary Victorian public hospital. Participants: Twenty‐nine adults who underwent publicly funded primary bariatric surgery between 2008 and 2018 at the Alfred Hospital, Melbourne and had high resource use over the year prior to surgery, defined as at least two of ≥3 hospital admissions, ≥7 inpatient bed days for obesity‐related co‐morbidities or inpatient hospital costs ≥$10 000. Main outcome measures: Change in inpatient and outpatient resource use. Results After 1 year following bariatric surgery, total hospital bed days decreased from 663 to 80 and the median (Q1, Q3) per patient decreased from 7 (4.5, 15) to 5 (2.25, 9.75) (p = 0.001) and the total number of hospital admissions fell from 118 to 67 (p < 0.001). The median cost of inpatient care decreased from $11 405 ($4408, $22251) to $3974 ($0, $4325) per annum (p < 0.001). The total and median number of outpatient attendances did not significantly change 12 months after bariatric surgery, but the demand for outpatient services unrelated to bariatric surgery declined by a median of four visits per patient (p = 0.013). Conclusions The evidence from this small pilot study suggests that Bariatric surgery has the potential to decrease resource use and inpatient hospital costs over a 1‐year time frame for obese patients with high resource use. These data will be used to design a prospective randomised controlled trial to provide more definitive information on this important issue.
Purpose This study aims to determine if the hospital efficiency, safety and health outcomes are equal in patients who receive bariatric surgery in government-funded hospitals (GFH) versus privately funded hospitals (PFH). Materials and Methods This is a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Australia and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry of 14,862 procedures (2134 GFH and 12,728 PFH) from 33 hospitals (8 GFH and 25 PFH) performed in Victoria, Australia, between January 1st, 2015, and December 31st, 2020. Outcome measures included the difference in efficacy (weight loss, diabetes remission), safety (defined adverse event and complications) and efficiency (hospital length of stay) between the two health systems. Results GFH treated a higher risk patient group who were older by a mean (SD) 2.4 years (0.27), P < 0.001; had a mean 9.0 kg (0.6) greater weight at time of surgery, P < 0.001; and a higher prevalence of diabetes at day of surgery OR = 2.57 (CI95%2.29–2.89), P < 0.001. Despite these baseline differences, both GFH and PFH yielded near identical remission of diabetes which was stable up to 4 years post-operatively (57%). There was no statistically significant difference in defined adverse events between the GFH and PFH (OR = 1.24 (CI95% 0.93–1.67), P = 0.14). Both healthcare settings demonstrated that similar covariates affect length of stay (LOS) (diabetes, conversion bariatric procedures and defined adverse event); however, these covariates had a greater effect on LOS in GFH compared to PFH. Conclusions Bariatric surgery performed in GFH and PFH yields comparable health outcomes (metabolic and weight loss) and safety. There was a small but statistically significant increased LOS following bariatric surgery in GFH. Graphical Abstract
BackgroundThe length of a patient's stay (LOS) in a hospital is one metric used to compare the quality of care, as a longer LOS may flag higher complication rates or less efficient processes. A meaningful comparison of LOS can only occur if the expected average length of stay (ALOS) is defined first. This study aimed to define the expected ALOS of primary and conversion bariatric surgery in Australia and to quantify the effect of patient, procedure, system, and surgeon factors on ALOS.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study of prospectively maintained data from the Bariatric Surgery Registry of 63 604 bariatric procedures performed in Australia. The primary outcome measure was the expected ALOS for primary and conversion bariatric procedures. The secondary outcome measures quantified the change in ALOS for bariatric surgery resulting from patient, procedure, hospital, and surgeon factors.ResultsUncomplicated primary bariatric surgery had an ALOS (SD) of 2.30 (1.31) days, whereas conversion procedures had an ALOS (SD) of 2.71 (2.75) days yielding a mean difference (SEM) in ALOS of 0.41 (0.05) days, P < 0.001. The occurrence of any defined adverse event extended the ALOS of primary and conversion procedures by 1.14 days (CI 95% 1.04–1.25), P < 0.001 and 2.33 days (CI 95% 1.54–3.11), P < 0.001, respectively. Older age, diabetes, rural home address, surgeon operating volume and hospital case volume increased the ALOS following bariatric surgery.ConclusionsOur findings have defined Australia's expected ALOS following bariatric surgery. Increased patient age, diabetes, rural living, procedural complications and surgeon and hospital case volume exerted a small but significant increase in ALOS.Study typeRetrospective observational study of prospectively collected data.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.