This study aims to use the Dr Foster Global Comparators Network (GC) database to examine differences in outcomes following high-risk emergency general surgery (EGS) admissions in participating centres across 3 countries and to determine whether hospital infrastructure factors can be linked to the delivery of high-quality care.
A retrospective cohort analysis of high-risk EGS admissions using GC's international administrative data set.
23 large hospitals in Australia, England and the USA.
Discharge data for a cohort of high-risk EGS patients were collated. Multilevel hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed to examine geographical and structural differences between GC hospitals.
69 490 patients, admitted to 23 centres across Australia, England and the USA from 2007 to 2012, were identified. For all patients within this cohort, outcomes defined as: 7-day and 30-day inhospital mortality, readmission and length of stay appeared to be superior in US centres. A subgroup of 19 082 patients (27%) underwent emergency abdominal surgery. No geographical differences in mortality were seen at 7 days in this subgroup. 30-day mortality (OR=1.47, p<0.01) readmission (OR=1.42, p<0.01) and length of stay (OR=1.98, p<0.01) were worse in English units. Patient factors (age, pathology, comorbidity) were significantly associated with worse outcome as were structural factors, including low intensive care unit bed ratios, high volume and interhospital transfers. Having dedicated EGS teams cleared of elective commitments with formalised handovers was associated with shorter length of stay.
Key factors that influence outcomes were identified. For patients who underwent surgery, outcomes were similar at 7 days but not at 30 days. This may be attributable to better infrastructure and resource allocation towards EGS in the US and Australian centres.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#21,109,105
of 26,852,251 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#22,082
of 26,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,577
of 325,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#397
of 463 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,852,251 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 463 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
