Background Hospital readmission within 30-days of an index hospitalization is receiving increased scrutiny as a marker of poor quality patient care. This study identifies factors associated with 30-day readmission following General Surgery procedures. Study Design Using standard National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) protocol, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were collected on patients undergoing inpatient General Surgery procedures at a single academic center between 2009 and 2011. Data were merged with our institutional clinical data warehouse to identify unplanned 30-day readmissions. Demographics, comorbidities, type of procedure, postoperative complications, and ICD-9 coding data were reviewed for patients who were readmitted. Univariate and multivariate analysis was utilized to identify risk factors associated with 30-day readmission. Results 1442 General Surgery patients were reviewed. 163 (11.3%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. The most common reasons for readmission were gastrointestinal complaint/complication (27.6%), surgical infection (22.1%), and failure to thrive/malnutrition (10.4%). Comorbidities associated with risk of readmission included disseminated cancer, dyspnea, and preoperative open wound (p<0.05 for all variables). Surgical procedures associated with higher rates of readmission included pancreatectomy, colectomy, and liver resection. Postoperative occurrences leading to increased risk of readmission were blood transfusion, postoperative pulmonary complication, wound complication, sepsis/shock, urinary tract infection, and vascular complications. Multivariable analysis demonstrates that the most significant independent risk factor for readmission is the occurrence of any postoperative complication (OR 4.20, 95% CI 2.89–6.13). Conclusions Risk factors for readmission after General Surgery procedures are multi-factorial; however, postoperative complications appear to drive readmissions in surgical patients. Taking appropriate steps to minimize postoperative complications will decrease postoperative readmissions.

Pursuit of the triple bottom line of economic, community and ecological sustainability has increased the complexity of fishery management; fisheries assessments require new types of data and analysis to guide science-based policy in addition to traditional biological information and modeling. We introduce the Fishery Performance Indicators (FPIs), a broadly applicable and flexible tool for assessing performance in individual fisheries, and for establishing cross-sectional links between enabling conditions, management strategies and triple bottom line outcomes. Conceptually separating measures of performance, the FPIs use 68 individual outcome metrics—coded on a 1 to 5 scale based on expert assessment to facilitate application to data poor fisheries and sectors—that can be partitioned into sector-based or triple-bottom-line sustainability-based interpretative indicators. Variation among outcomes is explained with 54 similarly structured metrics of inputs, management approaches and enabling conditions. Using 61 initial fishery case studies drawn from industrial and developing countries around the world, we demonstrate the inferential importance of tracking economic and community outcomes, in addition to resource status.

This research utilizes a laboratory experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative public policies targeted at increasing the rate of deceased donor organ donation. The experiment includes treatments across different default choices and organ allocation rules inspired by the donor registration systems applied in different countries. Our results indicate that the opt-out with priority rule system generates the largest increase in organ donation relative to an opt-in only program. However, sizeable gains are achievable using either a priority rule or opt-out program separately, with the opt-out rule generating approximately 80% of the benefits achieved under a priority rule program.

No abstract

The transplant surgeon's decision to accept and utilize an organ typically is made within a constrained time window, explicitly cognizant of numerous healthrelated risks and under the potential influence of considerable regulatory and institutional pressures. This decision affects the health of two distinct populations, those patients receiving organ transplants and those waiting to receive a transplant; it also influences the physician's life and their institute's productivity. The numerous, at times nonaligned, incentives established by the complex clinical and regulatory environment, have been derived specifically to influence physicians' behaviors, and though well intended, may lead to responses that are nonoptimal when considering the myriad stakeholders being influenced. This may compromise the quality of care provided to the population at risk, and has potential to influence the physicianpatient relationship. A synergistic collaboration between transplant physicians and economists that is focused on this decision environment may help to alleviate these strains. This viewpoint discusses behavioral economic principles and how they might be applied to transplantation. Specifically, the previous medical decision-making literature on transplantation will be reviewed and a discussion on how a behavioral model of physician decision making can be utilized will be explored. To date this approach has not been integrated into transplantation decision making.