The Postoperative Morbidity Survey was validated and used to describe morbidity after major surgery

Grocott, Michael P.W.; Browne, John; Meulen, Jan van der; Matejowsky, Claire; Mutch, M; Hamilton, Mark A.; Levett, Denny; Emberton, Mark; Haddad, Fares S.; Mythen, Michael G.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.12.003

Cited by 216 publications

(280 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

270

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Postoperative Morbidity Score (POMS)18 was collected for each patient in the ELPQuiC study on days 3 and 7 after surgery and costed using NHS reference costs19. Input data were derived from the study and included effectiveness data (30‐day and in‐hospital mortality and morbidity) and cost data (resource utilization during the study period, implementation and in‐hospital costs).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of a quality improvement bundle for emergency laparotomy

Ebm¹,

Aggarwal

Huddart

et al. 2018

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe recent Emergency Laparotomy Pathway Quality Improvement Care (ELPQuiC) study showed that the use of a specific care bundle reduced mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. However, the costs of implementation of the ELPQuiC bundle remain unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the in‐hospital and societal costs of implementing the ELPQuiC bundle.MethodsThe ELPQuiC study employed a before–after approach using quality improvement methodology. To assess the costs and cost‐effectiveness of the bundle, two models were constructed: a short‐term model to assess in‐hospital costs and a long‐term model (societal decision tree) to evaluate the patient's lifetime costs (in euros).ResultsUsing health economic modelling and data collected from the ELPQuiC study, estimated costs for initial implementation of the ELPQuiC bundle were €30 026·11 (range 1794·64–40 784·06) per hospital. In‐hospital costs per patient were estimated at €14 817·24 for standard (non‐care bundle) treatment versus €15 971·24 for the ELPQuiC bundle treatment. Taking a societal perspective, lifetime costs of the patient in the standard group were €23 058·87, compared with €19 102·37 for patients receiving the ELPQuiC bundle. The increased life expectancy of 4 months for patients treated with the ELPQuiC bundle was associated with cost savings of €11 410·38 per quality‐adjusted life‐year saved.ConclusionImplementation of the ELPQuiC bundle is associated with lower mortality and higher in‐hospital costs but reduced societal costs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of a quality improvement bundle for emergency laparotomy

Ebm¹,

Aggarwal

Huddart

et al. 2018

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include the Postoperative Morbidity Survey (POMS), 41,42 Cardiac Postoperative Morbidity Score (C-POMS), 43 and Comprehensive Complication Index. 44,45 While a robust system for quantifying overall postoperative morbidity would appear advantageous, such systems also pose challenges.…”

Section: Morbidity Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

La standardisation des critères d’évaluation en recherche périopératoire

Boney

Moonesinghe

Myles

et al. 2016

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, neither is applicable in the case of elective ambulatory surgery. 1 Patients expect more from an anaesthetic than merely being able to wake up afterwards. 2 For example, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anaesthesia can increase the cost of the total health care by increasing recovery room time and potential hospital admission.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient satisfaction during and following procedural sedation for ambulatory surgery

Lapere

Roelofse

Omar

et al. 2015

Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient satisfaction is multidimensional. The clinician's perspective of a good outcome and the patient's experience of a satisfactory service are often two different end-points. The primary aim of our study was to assess the perioperative experience of patients undergoing procedural sedation. A secondary aim was to create a postoperative questionnaire which could be used as a measurement tool. The questions could also be used as an audit to assist with adherence to quality assurance and clinical governance. Method: A questionnaire was compiled to attempt to assess the perioperative aspects of procedural sedation. Five hundred consecutive patients undergoing procedural sedation for dental-related outpatient procedures were asked to complete a questionnaire. Patients who didn't complete it were excluded. Ninety-eight per cent of the patients returned the questionnaire and 489 questionnaires were evaluated. Results: A total of 489 patients were included. Ninety-three per cent of the patients expressed a good (7+/10) overall experience of procedural sedation, and 92.6% indicated that they would recommend it to others. Conclusion: Our study population showed a high level of satisfaction with their sedation experience. It is suggested that the devised questionnaire could be used successfully in future as an assessment tool or audit of patient satisfaction following procedural sedation for ambulatory surgery.

show abstract

The Postoperative Morbidity Survey was validated and used to describe morbidity after major surgery

Cited by 216 publications

References 42 publications

Cost‐effectiveness of a quality improvement bundle for emergency laparotomy

Cost‐effectiveness of a quality improvement bundle for emergency laparotomy

La standardisation des critères d’évaluation en recherche périopératoire

Patient satisfaction during and following procedural sedation for ambulatory surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About