Objectives Hospital variation in risk-adjusted outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery has been shown. However, explanatory factors are not sufficiently clear. The objective of this study was to identify factors perceived by gastrointestinal surgeons as important to achieve excellent casemix-adjusted outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Design Based on literature and experts' opinion, 86 factors associated with serious complications, failure to rescue and mortality were listed. These were presented to gastrointestinal surgeons through two web-based surveys and an expert meeting. Participants were asked to choose their top 10 of most important factors. Participants Dutch gastrointestinal surgeons (n=52) of different hospitals and different hospital types (general/teaching/academic). Results Of 31 invited experts for the first survey and meeting, 71% responded. Of 130 invited surgeons, 34 responded to the second survey. Factors deemed important were: procedural hospital volume (46% in top 10), specialised surgeons performing surgery, (elective 87%, emergency 60% and reoperations 62% in top 10), accessibility of, and daily ward rounds by specialised surgeons (41% and 38% in top 10), preoperative screening for malnutrition (57% in top 10), a protocol for recognition of anastomotic leakage and rapid reintervention (54% and 49% in top 10). Conclusion Procedural hospital volume, specialisation of surgeons, screening for malnutrition, early recognition of complications followed by rapid action were perceived as most important factors to achieve good outcomes by gastrointestinal surgeons.@en

Background: It is unclear whether emergency weekend colon and rectal cancer surgery are associated with worse outcomes (ie, weekend effect) because previous studies mostly used administrative data, which may insufficiently adjust for case-mix. Materials and Methods: Prospectively collected data from the 2012-2015 Dutch ColoRectal Audit (n=5,224) was used to examine differences in 30-day mortality and severe complication and failure-To-rescue rates for emergency weekend (Saturday and Sunday) versus Monday surgery, stratified for colon and rectal cancer. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, tumor stage, presence of metastasis, preoperative complication, additional resection for metastasis or locally advanced tumor, location primary colon tumor, type of rectal surgery (lower anterior resection or abdominal perineal resection), and type of neoadjuvant therapy (short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy). Results: A total of 5,052 patients undergoing colon cancer surgery and 172 undergoing rectal cancer surgery were included. Patients undergoing colon or rectal cancer surgery during weekends had significantly more preoperative tumor complications compared with those undergoing surgery on a weekday. Additionally, differences in year of surgery and location of primary tumor were found for colon cancer surgery. Emergency colon cancer surgery during the weekend was associated with increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.10-2.50) and severe complications (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63) compared with surgery on Monday. Estimates for emergency weekend rectal cancer surgery were similar but not statistically significant, likely explained by small numbers. Conclusions: Weekend emergency colon cancer surgery was associated with higher mortality and severe complication rates. More research is needed to understand which factors explain and contribute to these differences.@en

Background: According to Dutch guidelines, locally excised, low-risk, pT1 or ypT0–1 rectal cancer should not necessarily be followed by completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) in contrast to rectal cancers with higher T stages or unfavorable features. This study evaluated cTME after local excision at a national level with possible determinants for decision-making. Methods: All patients in the Dutch Colorectal Audit (DCRA) who underwent local excision of rectal cancer between 2012 and 2015 were included. Guideline adherence for performing cTME was determined with univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors related to noncompliance. Results: According to the guidelines, of 530 included patients, cTME was indicated in 283 (53%), and among those, was performed in 82 (29%). Guideline adherence for performing cTME improved significantly (P<.001), from 10% in 2012 to 44% in 2015. Lower Charlson comorbidity index in patients with high-risk pT1 rectal cancer and younger patients (aged 61–70 years vs ≥80 years) with pT≥2 rectal cancer were associated with increased performance of cTME (odds ratio [OR], 13.50; 95% CI, 1.39–131.32, and OR, 6.25; 95% CI, 1.83–21.31, respectively). Conclusions: In this population-based study from the Netherlands, only a minority of patients underwent cTME after local excision of rectal cancer with pathologic features indicating the need for further treatment according to the guidelines. Although the percentage of patients undergoing cTME increased over time, the study indicated a tendency toward rectal-preserving treatment with potential oncologic risks.@en

Background: Comparing outcomes across hospitals to learn from best performing hospitals can be valuable. However, reliably identifying best performance is challenging. This study assesses the possibility to distinguish best performing hospitals on single outcomes and consistency of performance on different outcomes. Methods: Data were derived from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit 2013–2015. Outcomes considered were textbook outcome (colon), (circumferential) resection margins, (serious) complications, mortality, and ‘failure to rescue’. To include uncertainty in rankings, random effect logistic regression models were used to calculate expected ranks (ERs), for each hospital and outcome. Rankability was calculated for each outcome, as a measure of reliability of ranking. Furthermore, correlation between ERs on different outcomes was assessed. Correlation was considered weak <0.40, moderate between 0.40 - 0.59 and strong >0.60. Results: The study included 32 143 patients; of whom 11 373 were treated in 2015 across 84 hospitals, 8181 colon and 3192 rectal cancer patients. In this one-year period ‘Postoperative complications’ had the highest rankability for colon (57%) and rectal (41%) surgery. No (group of) hospital(s) had the highest ER(s) on all outcomes. Correlation between ERs of outcomes was moderate in 2 (of 25) and strong in 4 (of 25) combinations. Rankability of colorectal mortality increased from 14% in 2015 to 35% when data over 2013–2015 were used. Conclusion: The highest reliability of identifying best performance based on an outcome was 57%. However, the balance between reliability and relevance of outcomes is vulnerable. No (group of) hospital(s) could be identified as best performer on all outcomes. Performance was not consistent on outcomes.@en

Background: Emergency colon cancer surgery is associated with increased mortality and complication risk, which can be due to differences in the organization of hospital care. This study aimed. Objective: To explore which structural factors in the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative periods influence outcomes after emergency colon cancer surgery. Methods: An observational study was performed in 30 Dutch hospitals. Medical records from 1738 patients operated in the period 2012 till 2015 were reviewed on the type of referral, intensive care unit (ICU) level, surgeon specialization and experience, duration of surgery and operating room time, blood loss, stay on specialized postoperative ward, complication occurrence, reintervention and day of surgery and linked to case-mix data available in the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the influence of these factors on 30-day mortality, severe complication and failure to rescue (FTR), after adjustment for case-mix. Results: Patients operated by a non-Gastro intestinal/oncology specialized surgeon have significantly increased mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.28 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.23-4.23]) and severe complication risk (OR 1.61 [95% CI 1.08-2.39]). Also, duration of stay in the operating room was significantly associated with increased risk on severe complication (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01-1.06]). Patients admitted to a non-specialized ward have significantly increased mortality (OR 2.25 [95% CI 1.46-3.47]) and FTR risk (OR 2.39 [95% CI 1.52-3.75]). A low ICU level (basic ICU) was associated with a lower severe complication risk (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.52-1.00]). Surgery on Tuesday was associated with a higher mortality risk (OR 2.82 [95% CI 1.24-6.40]) and a severe complication risk (OR 1.77, [95% CI 1.19-2.65]). Conclusion: This study identified a non-specialized surgeon and ward, operating room, time and day of surgery to be risk factors for worse outcomes in emergency colon cancer surgery.@en

Background: Previous studies showing higher mortality after elective surgery performed on a Friday were based on administrative data, known for insufficient case-mix adjustment. The goal of this study was to investigate the risk of adverse events for patients with colon and rectal cancer by day of elective surgery using clinical data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Patients and Methods: Prospectively collected data from the 2012-2015 Dutch ColoRectal Audit (n=36,616) were used to examine differences in mortality, severe complications, and failure to rescue by day of elective surgery (Monday through Friday). Monday was used as a reference, analyses were stratified for colon and rectal cancer, and case-mix adjustments were made for previously identified variables. Results: For both colon and rectal cancer, crude mortality, severe complications, and failure-to-rescue rates varied by day of elective surgery. After case-mix adjustment, lower severe complication risk was found for rectal cancer surgery performed on a Friday (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97) versus Monday. No significant differences were found for colon cancer surgery performed on different weekdays. Conclusions: No weekday effect was found for elective colon and rectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands. Lower severe complication risk for elective rectal cancer surgery performed on a Friday may be caused by patient selection.@en

Background and objectives: It is increasingly accepted that quality of colon cancer surgery might be secured by combining volume standards with audit implementation. However, debate remains about other structural factors also influencing this quality, such as hospital teaching status. This study evaluates short-term outcomes after colon cancer surgery of patients treated in general, teaching or academic hospitals. Methods: All patients (n = 23,593) registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit undergoing colon cancer surgery between 2011 and 2014 were included. Patients were divided into groups based on teaching status of their hospital. Main outcome measures were serious complications, failure to rescue (FTR) and 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression models on these outcome measures and with hospital teaching status as primary determinant were used, adjusted for case-mix, year of surgery and hospital volume. Results: Patients treated in teaching and academic hospitals showed higher adjusted serious complication rates, compared to patients treated in general hospitals (odds ratio 1.25 95% CI [1.11–1.39] and OR 1.23 [1.05–1.46]). However, patients treated in teaching hospitals had lower adjusted FTR rates than patients treated in general hospitals (OR 0.63 [0.44–0.89]). However, for all outcomes there was considerable between-hospitals variation within each type of teaching status. Conclusion: On average, patients treated in general hospitals had lower serious complication rates, but patients treated in teaching hospitals had more favorable FTR rates. Given the hospital variation within each hospital teaching type, it is possible to deliver excellent care regardless of the hospital teaching type.@en