View
57
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Innovative Cardiac Surgery
Robert Poston, MDProfessor of Surgery, Director of Cardiac Surgery
University of Arizona College of Medicine
Overview
• New CT programs at UAMC• Framework for implementation
– Manage the team• Change management• Strategies for team development
– Business model• Outcomes
R-CABG (n=406)
New Programs at UAMC
R-CABG R-MVrepair
Redo r-cardiac cases
New Programs at UAMC
Right ventricle dissected away from posterior sternum
Old Sternal Wire
Heart
Bipolar forceps
Unipolar cautery
Abstract presentation, Hansen A, et al., ISMICS 2012
Head
Exposure of Coronary Target
Abstract presentation, Hansen A, et al., ISMICS 2011
Mitral Valve Repair
Redo MVRepair
R-CABG R-MVrepair R-Lobectomy R-Mesothelioma R-Esophagectomy
TAVI Alternate access TAVI R-mini-VADRedo r-cardiac cases
New Programs at UAMC
R-VAD Program
Khalpey, Poston “LVAD implant using robotic assistance”, JTCVS, in press
sternum
right ventricle
Cardiothoracic Surgery at UAMC
BeforeJan 2011
Jan 2011to present
Traditional, open approach
Less invasiveapproach
Post
on ar
rival
0.5% less invasive
82% less invasive
Source: University Healthservices Consortium (UHC) database
Expectations
TimeFenn, J et al. (2008). Understanding Gartner's Hype Cycles. Harvard Business Press
Performance
Low
High
Low
High
Rapid Learning
Change Management1
1. Deliberately select the team2. Define the metrics of success3. Measure and communicate progress4. Multidisciplinary problem solving
1. Pisano, Edmunson et al, Organizational differences in the rates of learning: Lessons from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Science, 2001; 47(6): 752-69.
Total number of cases
Surg
ical
OR
times
0 100
Standard learning
Minimal learning curve
Variable Performance During Growth Phase
1. Pisano, Edmunson et al, Organizational differences in the rates of learning: Lessons from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Science, 2001; 47(6): 752-69.
Proc
edur
e/O
R tim
es
Total number of cases0 100Team development
and simulation training
Standard learning
Minimal clinical learning curve
Variable Performance During Growth Phase
TEAM SIMULATION TRAINING: OR and ICU
Supported by ASTEC and a grant from the UMCC IFL Risk Management Fund Program, 2011
Robotic Simulation: Animal Lab
Supported by grants from Heartware and Ethicon
Robotic Simulation: Cadaver Lab
Supported by grants from Heartware
TRAINING HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAMS
BRIEF – PERFORM - DEBRIEF
S Paidy, et al, Abstract presentation, American Society of Anesthesia, 10/2013
Metrics of Success: Robotic Mitral Valve
• SAFETY: Composite morbidity/mortality do not exceed 10%• COSTS: No greater than 25% increase over conventional cases
• SATISFACTION:– Staff: “Culture of safety”1 survey results do not decline by more than 5% – Patients: Patient satisfaction exceeds the results for conventional cases
• EFFECTIVENESS:– 90% repair rate– 90% freedom from reoperation at 1 year
1. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/patientsafetyculture/
Mitral Valve Repair at UAMC 2011-13
STS National Database Report 2013 Q3
Mitral Valve Repair at UAMC 2011-13
STS National Database Report 2013 Q3
STS Cases for Dr. Robert Poston532 cases in the STS Adult Cardiac database, spanning 6/2011 to 12/2013 (2 years and 6 months)
484 cases have STS risk models (iso-CABG, Iso-AVR, Iso-MV Replace, Iso-MV Repair, CABG+AVR, CABG+MV Repair, TAVRs are NOT included in risk model)375 are isolated CABGs109 are isolated valves or valve+CABG cases with risk models
Procedure Category n In-Hospital Mortality Rate
Operative Mortality O/E ratio
(STS risk model)
Combined Operative Mortality or Major
Morbidity Rate(patients who experienced
operative mortality or at least one major morbidity)
Combined Operative Mortality or Major Morbidity O/E ratio
(STS risk model, includes non-cardiac reops)
All cases in database(excluding TAVRs) - Poston 528 11/528 = 2.1%
For the 484 cases with risk models:
1.28
69/528 = 13.1%For the 484 cases with risk models:
0.81
Isolated CABG - Poston 375 4/375 = 1.1% 0.88 32/375 = 8.8% 0.66
STS Iso-CABG benchmark(mean value for all participants during Jan-June 2013)
99,259 1.6% 1.00 13.2% 1.00
Isolated Valves and Valve+CABPoston(only included non-CABG risk model cases, e.g. mitral valve with afib procedures excluded, n=32)
109 4/109 = 3.7% 1.68 26/109 = 23.9% 1.15
Data Sources (for benchmark):
UAMC Adult Cardiac STS Database and "Data Analyses of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database" produced October 2013 for period ending 6/30/2013 (most recent report)
Report Created on 1/27/14 by:Heather Reeves, RN, BSN, BA
106 Hybrid Cases4 TAVRs438 cases (82%) used "less invasive" techniques - robotic, mini-sternotomy, TAVR
Business Case for New Program Development
↑48% incremental volume at UAMC#Cardiac cases/mo.
2010 (all cases) 2011-13 (all cases)
In house referral
External referral
In house referral
External referral
CT surgeryreferral source
Source: University Healthservices Consortium (UHC) database
15 miles
87 miles
Travel Distance: Traditional vs. Robotic
traditional
robotic
Abstract presentation, ISMICS 2014, Bhatnagar, Poston
Robotic Surgery: Added Transaction Costs
• 72 more miles @ $0.35/mi = $25.20• 83% more lodging @ $100/d = $249.00• 26% more per diem food @ $25/d = $19.50• 14% more airfare @ $550/pt = $77.00
TOTAL $370.70/pt
Abstract presentation, ISMICS 2014, Bhatnagar, Poston
– Costs of option A vs. option B• Hospital capacity• Medicare P4P
– Sternal infections as a “never event”1
– Patient satisfaction score (i.e. Value Based Purchasing)2
• Payer mix– 5% difference = $1 million
Robotic Surgery: Opportunity Costs
A
B1. Medicare program; payment adjustment for provider-preventable
conditions including health care acquired conditions. Final rule. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Fed Regist. 2011 Jun 6; 76(108):32816-38.
2. www.cms.gov/Hospital-Value-Based-Purchasing
n
Operative Mortality Rate
(includes deaths during admit and up to 30 days post-procedure, even if
discharged)
Operative Mortality O/E
ratio(STS risk model)
Combined Operative Mortality or Major
Morbidity Rate(patients who experienced
operative mortality or at least one major morbidity)
Isolated CABG - Robotic 347 6/347 = 1.7% 0.93 31/347 = 8.9%
Isolated CABG - Sternotomy 148 7/148 = 4.7% 1.94 19/148 = 12.8%
STS Iso-CABG benchmark 143,628 2.0% 1.00 13.8%
Outcomes for Robotic CABG
Source: H. Reeves, Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database query, 9/13
www.sts.org
http://www.unitedhealthcareonline.comhttp://www.bcbs.com/why-bcbs/blue-distinction/
Domain Percentile for R-CABG (n=60)
Percentile for all UAMC (n=3107)
Rate hospital 9-10 90th 44th
Recommend the hospital
91st 54th
Comm with nurses 78th 23rd
Pain management 71st 28th
Discharge information 76th 37th
Comm with doctor 99th 7th
Hospital environment 6th 13th
Patient Satisfaction (HCAPHS)
Source: J Rocha, HCAPHS database query, 9/13
Redefining Value (in the era of patient centered care)
1. Clinical outcomes2. Cost-effectiveness3. Quality of life
4. If less-invasive is not inferior, then it is superior.
Michael Mack, MD; http://www.thebeatingedge.org/tag/valve-surgery/
Recommended