The Hospital Volume Relationship in Emergency Laparotomy Outcomes
NCT ID: NCT02047812
Last Updated: 2024-05-21
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
40000 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2001-01-31
2013-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
'Emergency Laparotomy' is an umbrella term for a set of commonly performed procedures which are known to carry a significant risk of mortality and morbidity. Previous work has shown considerable inter-hospital variation in emergency laparotomy outcomes within the United Kingdom. It is unknown whether there are significant differences in outcomes following laparotomy which may be explained by differences in hospital procedural volume.
Aims
The aim of this study is to compare emergency laparotomy outcomes in Scotland as they vary by hospital procedural volume.
Methods
This research study is a retrospective observational enquiry which will utilise administrative data from the Information Services Division (ISD) of NHS National Services Scotland. Patient episodes will be identified by a set of procedure codes for emergency laparotomy.
The primary outcome measure will be risk-adjusted 30 day/inpatient mortality, and secondary outcome measures will be 30 day readmission rate, 30 day re-operation rate and length of stay.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Geographic Influences on Emergency Laparotomy Outcomes
NCT02017977
Clinical Outcomes and Equality in Healthcare for Emergency General Surgery Patients Undergoing Emergency Laparotomy
NCT05623176
Recovery After Emergency Laparotomy: a Prospective Observational Feasibility Study
NCT02791633
Global Outcomes After Laparotomy for Trauma
NCT06180668
Predicting Pain After Ambulatory Gynaecological Laparoscopies
NCT07308444
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
This is a retrospective study of all emergency laparotomies performed in Scotland during the period from 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2010. It will use routinely collected administrative data from the Information Services Division (ISD) of NHS National Services Scotland.
Emergency laparotomy will be defined as a non-elective abdominal procedure primarily on the gut tube; and such cases will be identified by the use of a set of procedural codes, which will be validated against local records.
The registry which will supply the data for this study is the Scottish Morbidity Record 01 (SMR01), the full title of which is the "General / Acute Inpatient and Day Case dataset" (see http://www.adls.ac.uk/nhs-scotland/general-acute-inpatient-day-case-smr01/?detail). SMR01 is collated and administered by ISD, and data submission is mandatory for all Scottish NHS providers of in-patient or day-case care. Approximately 1.4 million records are added each year. Diagnoses are coded according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 standards and procedures are coded according to the United Kingdom's Office of Population Census Statistics (OPCS) standards, the most current of which is version 4.5. The data quality in SMR01 is high and is assured by regular internal audits. In the 2010 audit of accuracy, Main Condition was recorded with an accuracy of 88% and Main Procedure was recorded with an accuracy of 94%.
Where data inconsistencies are identified in the extract supplied for this study, further clarification will be obtained where possible with ISD's data retrieval support team. Data completeness is very high in SMR01. However, where significant volumes of data are missing or unusable, the need for data imputation will be explored.
The study period was decided on pragmatically by a desire to provide an assessment of current practice, fully within the era of widely practised laparoscopic surgery.
A power calculation also suggested that this would provide an adequate sample size to demonstrate mortality differences. A recent paper showed 30 day mortality for emergency laparotomy to be 14.9% (Saunders DI, Murray D, Pichel AC, Varley S, Peden CJ. Variations in mortality after emergency laparotomy: the first report of the UK Emergency Laparotomy Network. Br J Anaesth. 2012 Sep 1;109(3):368-75.)
We decided that we wanted to be able to detect a mortality difference (absolute) of 2%. Alpha was specified as 0.05 and power 0.9. Using a chi-2 test in G Power 3.1.7, it was determined that a total N of 5221 was required to show this difference. In the study already cited, 35 hospitals submitted data on 3 months of practice, giving a total of 1853 patients. We extrapolated to estimate that one hospital completes 212 laparotomies per year. There are currently 31 adult surgical centres in Scotland, resulting in an estimate of 6,565 laparotomies per year. Even accepting the smaller size of Scottish hospitals, this demonstrates that a 10 year cohort should be more than adequate to detect a clinically significant difference in length of stay.
Hospitals will be placed into tertiles of high, medium and low volume, according to the number of procedures performed over the study period.
The study will compare risk-adjusted 30 day/in-patient mortality as the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of 30 day re-admission rate, 30 day re-operation rate and post-operative length of stay. Potentially significant confounding variables such as age, gender, and co-morbidity will be studied for their predictive value in a univariate model and included in a multivariate model if they remain significant.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
ECOLOGIC_OR_COMMUNITY
RETROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
High volume hospitals
The hospitals in the upper tertile for procedural volume
No interventions assigned to this group
Medium volume hospitals
The hospitals in the middle tertile for procedural volume
No interventions assigned to this group
Low volume hospitals
The hospitals in the lowest tertile for procedural volume.
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* Multiple laparotomies on a single patient will not be counted as separate index events unless ≥6 months have passed between previous discharge and new hospital admission.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Edinburgh
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Ewen M Harrison, FRCS, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Edinburgh
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
All Scottish NHS Hospitals
Multiple Locations, , United Kingdom
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
XRB13069-VEL
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.