Aim Colon cancer resection in a nonelective setting is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this retrospective study is to identify risk factors for overall mortality after colon cancer resection with a special focus on nonelective resection. Method Data were obtained from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patients undergoing colon cancer resection in the Netherlands between January 2009 and December 2013 were included. Patient, treatment and tumour factors were analysed in relation to the urgency of surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Results The study included 30 907 patients. A nonelective colon cancer resection was performed in 5934 (19.2%) patients. There was a 4.4% overall mortality rate, with significantly more deaths after nonelective surgery (8.5% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001). Older patients, male patients and patients with high comorbidity, advanced tumours, perforated tumours, a tumour in the right or transverse colon and postoperative anastomotic leakage were at risk of postoperative death. In nonelective resections, a right-sided tumour and postoperative anastomotic leakage were associated with high mortality. Conclusion Nonelective colon cancer resection is associated with high mortality. In particular, right-sided resections and patients with tumour perforation are at particularly high risk. The optimization of patients prior to surgery and expeditious operation after diagnosis might prevent the need for a nonelective resection.

Aims: We propose a summarizing measure for outcome indicators, representing the proportion of patients for whom all desired short-term outcomes of care (a 'textbook outcome') is realized. The aim of this study was to investigate hospital variation in the proportion of patients with a 'textbook outcome' after colon cancer resections in the Netherlands. Methods: Patients who underwent a colon cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands were included in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. A textbook outcome was defined as hospital survival, radical resection, no reintervention, no ostomy, no adverse outcome and a hospital stay < 14 days. We calculated the number of hospitals with a significantly higher (positive outlier) or lower (negative outlier) Observed/Expected (O/E) textbook outcome than average. As quality measures may be more discriminative in a low-risk population, analyses were repeated for low-risk patients only. Results: A total of 5582 patients, treated in 82 hospitals were included. Average textbook outcome was 49% (range 26-71%). Eight hospitals were identified as negative outliers. In these hospitals a 'textbook outcome' was realized in 35% vs. 52% in average hospitals (p < 0.01). In a sub-Analysis for low-risk patients, only one additional negative outlier was identified. Conclusions: The textbook outcome, representing the proportion of patients with a perfect hospitalization, gives a simple comprehensive summary of hospital performance, while preventing indicator driven practice. Therewith the 'textbook outcome' is meaningful for patients, providers, insurance companies and healthcare inspectorate.