Lung cancer – standardised 30-day in-hospital mortality ratio following surgery
Metric
The ratio of the observed number of deaths to the expected number of deaths, multiplied by 100.
Numerator
All spells with method of discharge as death (DISMETH=4 or 5), within 30 days of the procedure date.
Denominator
Expected number of in-hospital deaths for patients who have received surgery for lung cancer. Any inpatient with a primary procedure of the following OPCS code:
- E54 Excision of lung
Equivalent to “Excision of lung” procedure group in the DFI tools
And a primary diagnosis of one of the following ICD10 codes:
- C33 Malignant neoplasm of trachea
- C34 Malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung
Data Source
SUS – CDS
Time frame
April 2010 – March 2011
Basis
Acute trust
Statistical methods used
Expected counts are derived from logistic regression, adjusting for:
- Sex
- Age on admission (in five year bands up to 90+)
- Admission method (non-elective or elective)
- Socio-economic deprivation quintile of the area of residence of the patient (based on the Carstairs Index)
- Procedure subgroup
- Co-morbidities (Dr Foster methodology)
- Number of previous emergency admissions in last 12 months
- Year of discharge (financial year)
- Palliative care (if any episode in the spell has the treatment function code 315 or contains ICD10 code Z515 in any of the diagnoses fields)
- Month of admission
- Source of admission
Logistic regression
The ratio is calculated by dividing the actual number of readmissions by the expected number and multiplying the figure by 100. It is expressed as a relative risk, where a risk rating of 100 represents the national average. If the trust has a SRR of 100, that means that the number of patients who were readmitted is exactly as would be expected taking into account the standardisation factors. A SRR above 100 means more patients were readmitted than would be expected; one below 100 means that fewer than expected were readmitted.
Control limits
Control limits tell us the range of values which are consistent with random or chance variation. Data points falling within the control limits are consistent with random or chance variation and are said to display ‘common-cause variation’; for data points falling outside the control limits, chance is an unlikely explanation and hence they are said to display ‘special-cause variation’ – that is, where the trust’s rate diverges significantly from the national rate.
Data points falling above the upper 99.8% control limit are said to be significantly ‘higher than expected’, data points falling below the lower 99.8% control limit are said to be significantly ‘lower than expected’, otherwise ‘within expected range’.
Notes
ICD10 contains no TNM staging information therefore we have tried to reproduce the essence using primary and secondary diagnosis fields. ‘Local spread’ requires the presence of a code for a local lymph node AND the absence of codes for distant nodes or organs. ‘Distant spread’ requires the presence of a code for distant nodes or organs (there may also be codes for local node or organ involvement present).
The denominator procedure group “Excision of lung” will be organised into the following procedure subgroups within the DFI tools and for the purposes of risk adjustment. This indicator is a collation of the first 3 subgroups.
| Subgroup title | Primary diagnosis codes | Secondary diagnosis codes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Lung only, no nodes | C33, C34 | No other C |
| 2. Lung only, local nodes | C33, C34 | C771 (intrathoracic lymph nodes) and no other C77-C79 |
| 3. Lung only, distant spread | C33, C34 | C77-C79 excl C771 |
| 4. Other neoplasms | C00-D48 but not C33,C34 | Any |
| 5. All other diseases | Not C00-D48 | Any |
Comment from the Dr Foster Hospital Guide Team
We suggest further refining the table above to provide greater definition. The new codes would be:
| Subgroup title | Primary diagnosis codes | Secondary diagnosis codes |
| 1. Lung, no nodes | C33, C34 | Any excl C77-C79 |
| 2. Lung, local spread | C33, C34 | C771 (intrathoracic lymph nodes) if no other C77-C79 |
| 3. Lung, distant spread | C33, C34 | C77-C79 excl C771 |
| 4. Other tumours | C00-D48 but not C33,C34 | Any |
| 5. All other disease | Any except C00-D48 | Any |
What co morbidity codes will be used.
lung resection shoud not be associated with Palliative treatment so why adjust for that
I think that any analysis of post operative mortality should be risk-adjusted. The models most commonly suggested in thoracic surgery are Thoracoscore (Falcoz, J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007 Feb;133(2):325-32) and ESOS (Brunelli,.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008 Feb;33(2):284-8) which hsould be incorporated in the methodology.
The 30 day mortality rate should also be interpreted in the context of the Unit’s resection rate for lung cancer.
Evidence from the National Lung Cancer Audit is emerging that thoracic surgeons should be operating on more and higher risk patients. Increasing the resection rate from the current level is a key priority to save lives. There is an excessive variation in resection rate from the NLCA, as published last month.
I have grave concerns that presenting data on in-hospital mortality and readmission, when isolated from data including, but not limited exclusively to, the cancer resection rate, could drive surgeons of a conservative nature to operate even more conservatively, thus losing the opportunity of curative surgery.
How are co-morbidities assessed? This is not clear. Again, data from the the NLCA suggest that the differences in public health derived indices are too crude to account for differences in practice. What expertise in thoracic surgery risk stratification does the Dr Foster Hospital Guide Team possess? Those of us who have published data in this topic accept that this is very much work in progress. To believe that you can provide such stratification to a high degree is disingenuous.
My point is that you will publish data anyway which are crude and not worthy of learned comment. It will do little to address issues of inequality of service. The real issue on lung cancer surgery is unequal access TO surgery. If Dr Foster focused on that instead, lives could be saved, not put at risk, as a result of your “initiative”.
What consultation has there been with professional societies?
John Edwards PhD FRCS(C/Th)
Consultant Thoracic Surgeon
Member, SCTS Thoracic Surgery Sub-Committee