Search results for: Shreya Poddar

Authors: Shreya Saxena

Abstract:

Background: Choledocholithiasis is a common complication of gallstone disease. Risk scoring systems exist to guide the need for further imaging or endoscopy in managing choledocholithiasis. We completed an audit to review the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) scoring system for prediction and management of choledocholithiasis against the current practice at a tertiary hospital to assess its utility in resource optimisation. We have now conducted a cost focused sub-analysis on patients categorized high-risk for choledocholithiasis according to the guidelines to determine any associated cost benefits. Method: Data collection from our prior audit was used to retrospectively identify thirteen patients considered high-risk for choledocholithiasis. Their ongoing management was mapped against the guidelines. Individual costs for the key investigations were obtained from our hospital financial data. Total cost for the different management pathways identified in clinical practice were calculated and compared against predicted costs associated with recommendations in the guidelines. We excluded the cost of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and considered a set figure for per day hospital admission related expenses. Results: Based on our previous audit data, we identified a77% positive predictive value for the ASGE risk stratification tool to determine patients at high-risk of choledocholithiasis. 47% (6/13) had an magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) prior to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), whilst 53% (7/13) went straight for ERCP. The average length of stay in the hospital was 7 days, with an additional day and cost of £328.00 (£117 for ERCP) for patients awaiting an MRCP prior to ERCP. Per day hospital admission was valued at £838.69. When calculating total cost, we assumed all patients had admission bloods and ultrasound done as the gold standard. In doing an MRCP prior to ERCP, there was a 130% increase in cost incurred (£580.04 vs £252.04) per patient. When also considering hospital admission and the average length of stay, it was an additional £1166.69 per patient. We then calculated the exact costs incurred by the department, over a three-month period, for all patients, for key investigations or procedures done in the management of choledocholithiasis. This was compared to an estimate cost derived from the recommended pathways in the ASGE guidelines. Overall, 81% (£2048.45) saving was associated with following the guidelines compared to clinical practice. Conclusion: MRCP is the most expensive test associated with the diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis. The ASGE guidelines recommend endoscopy without an MRCP in patients stratified as high-risk for choledocholithiasis. Our audit that focused on assessing the utility of the ASGE risk scoring system showed it to be relatively reliable for identifying high-risk patients. Our cost analysis has shown significant cost savings per patient and when considering the average length of stay associated with direct endoscopy rather than an additional MRCP. Part of this is also because of an increased average length of stay associated with waiting for an MRCP. The above data supports the ASGE guidelines for the management of high-risk for choledocholithiasis patients from a cost perspective. The only caveat is our small data set that may impact the validity of our average length of hospital stay figures and hence total cost calculations.

Keywords: cost-analysis, choledocholithiasis, risk stratification tool, general surgery

Procedia PDF Downloads 75

Authors: Shreya Saxena, Felix Miller-Molloy, Phillipa Bowen, Greg Fellows, Elizabeth Bowen

Abstract:

Background: Complex fluid balance abnormalities are well-established post-neurosurgery and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The triple-phase response requires fluid management strategies reactive to urine output and sodium homeostasis as patients shift between Diabetes Insipidus (DI) and Syndrome of Inappropriate ADH (SIADH). It was observed, at a tertiary paediatric center, a relatively high prevalence of the above complications within a cohort of paediatric post-neurosurgical and TBI patients. An audit of the clinical practice against set institutional guidelines was undertaken and analyzed to understand why this was occurring. Based on those results, new guidelines were developed with structured educational packages for the specialist teams involved. This was then reaudited, and the findings were compared. Methods: Two independent audits were conducted across two time periods, pre and post guideline change. Primary data was collected retrospectively, including both qualitative and quantitative data sets from the CQUIN neurosurgical database and electronic medical records. All paediatric patients post posterior fossa (PFT) or supratentorial surgery or with a TBI were included. A literature review of evidence-based practice, initial audit data, and stakeholder feedback was used to develop new clinical guidelines and nursing standard operation procedures. Compliance against these newly developed guidelines was re-assessed and a thematic, trend-based analysis of the two sets of results was conducted. Results: Audit-1 January2017-June2018, n=80; Audit-2 January2020-June2021, n=30 (reduced operative capacity due to COVID-19 pandemic). Overall, improvements in the monitoring of both fluid balance and electrolyte trends were demonstrated; 51% vs. 77% and 78% vs. 94%, respectively. The number of clear fluid management plans documented postoperatively also increased (odds ratio of 4), leading to earlier recognition and management of evolving fluid-balance abnormalities. The local paediatric endocrine team was involved in the care of all complex cases and notified sooner for those considered to be developing DI or SIADH (14% to 35%). However, significant Na fluctuations (>12mmol in 24 hours) remained similar – 5 vs six patients – found to be due to complex pituitary hypothalamic pathology – and the recommended adaptive fluid management strategy was still not always used. Qualitative data regarding useability and understanding of fluid-balance abnormalities and the revised guidelines were obtained from health professionals via surveys and discussion in the specialist teams providing care. The feedback highlighted the new guidelines provided a more consistent approach to the post-operative care of these patients and was a better platform for communication amongst the different specialist teams involved. The potential limitation to our study would be the small sample size on which to conduct formal analyses; however, this reflects the population that we were investigating, which we cannot control. Conclusion: The revised clinical guidelines, based on audited data, evidence-based literature review and stakeholder consultations, have demonstrated an improvement in understanding of the neuro-endocrine complications that are possible, as well as increased compliance to post-operative monitoring of fluid balance and electrolytes in this cohort of patients. Emphasis has been placed on preventative rather than treatment of DI and SIADH. Consequently, this has positively impacted patient safety for the center and highlighted the importance of educational awareness and multi-disciplinary team working.

Keywords: post-operative, fluid-balance management, neuro-endocrine complications, paediatric

Procedia PDF Downloads 68