- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Odell, David D."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Association of Preoperative Smoking with Complications Following Major Gastrointestinal Surgery(Elsevier, 2022) Brajcich, Brian C.; Yuce, Tarik K.; Merkow, Ryan P.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; McGee, Michael F.; Zhan, Tiannan; Odell, David D.; Surgery, School of MedicineBackground: Understanding modifiable surgical risk factors is essential for preoperative optimization. We evaluated the association between smoking and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: Patients who underwent elective colorectal, pancreatic, gastric, or hepatic procedures were identified in the 2017 ACS NSQIP dataset. The primary outcome was 30-day death or serious morbidity (DSM). Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complications, wound complications, and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between smoking and these outcomes. Results: A total of 46,921 patients were identified, of whom 7,671 (16.3%) were smokers. Smoking was associated with DSM (23.2% vs. 20.4%, OR 1.15 [1.08-1.23]), wound complications (13.0% vs. 10.4%, OR 1.24 [1.14-1.34]), pulmonary complications (4.9% vs 2.9%, OR 1.93 [1.70-2.20]), and unplanned readmission (12.6% vs. 11%, OR 1.14 [95% CI 1.06-1.23]). Conclusions: Smoking is associated with complications following major gastrointestinal surgery. Patients who smoke should be counseled prior to surgery regarding risks.Item Evaluation of Emergency Department Treat-and-Release Encounters After Major Gastrointestinal Surgery(Wiley, 2023) Brajcich, Brian C.; Johnson, Julie K.; Holl, Jane L.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Shallcross, Meagan L.; Chung, Jeanette; Joung, Rachel Hae Soo; Iroz, Cassandra B.; Odell, David D.; Bentrem, David J.; Yang, Anthony D.; Franklin, Patricia D.; Slota, Jennifer M.; Silver, Casey M.; Skolarus, Ted; Merkow, Ryan P.; Surgery, School of MedicineBackground and objectives: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. Methods: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Results: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. Conclusions: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.Item Institutional factors associated with adherence to quality measures for stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer(Elsevier, 2021) Khorfan, Rhami; Cooke, David T.; Meguid, Robert A.; Backhus, Leah; Varghese, Thomas K., Jr.; Farjah, Farhood; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Odell, David D.; ThORN Collaborative; Surgery, School of MedicineObjective: Although previous studies have identified variation in quality lung cancer care, existing quality metrics may not fully capture the complexity of cancer care. The Thoracic Surgery Outcomes Research Network recently developed quality measures to address this. We evaluated baseline adherence to these measures and identified factors associated with adherence. Methods: Patients with pathologic stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer from 2010 to 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence to 7 quality measures was calculated. Goal hospital adherence threshold was 85%. Factors influencing adherence were identified using multilevel logistic regression. Results: We identified 253,182 patients from 1324 hospitals. Lymph node sampling was performed in 91% of patients nationally, but only 76% of hospitals met the 85% adherence mark. Similarly, 89% of T1b (seventh edition staging) tumors had anatomic resection, with 69% hospital-level adherence. Sixty-nine percent of pathologic stage II patients were recommended chemotherapy, with only 23% hospitals adherent. Eighty-three percent of patients had biopsy before primary radiation, with 64% hospitals adherent. Higher volume and academic institutions were associated with nonadherence to adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy measures. Conversely, lower volume and nonacademic institutions were associated with inadequate nodal sampling and nonanatomic resection. Conclusions: Significant gaps continue to exist in the delivery of quality care to patients with early-stage lung cancer. High-volume academic hospitals had higher adherence for surgical care measures, but lower rates for coordination of care measures. This requires further investigation, but suggests targets for quality improvement may vary by institution type.