Objectives: Postoperative wound dehiscence (PWD) is a serious complication to laparotomy, leading to higher mortality, readmissions and cost. The aims of the present study are to investigate whether risk adjusted PWD rates could reliably differentiate between Norwegian hospitals, and whether PWD rates were associated with hospital characteristics such as hospital type and laparotomy volume.
Design: Observational study using patient administrative data from all Norwegian hospitals, obtained from the Norwegian Patient Registry, for the period 2011-2015, and linked using the unique person identification number.
Participants: All patients undergoing laparotomy, aged at least 15 years, with length of stay at least 2 days and no diagnosis code for immunocompromised state or relating to pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium. The final data set comprised 66 925 patients with 78 086 laparotomy episodes from 47 hospitals.
Outcomes: The outcome was wound dehiscence, identified by the presence of a wound reclosure code, risk adjusted for patient characteristics and operation type.
Results: The final data set comprised 1477 wound dehiscences. Crude PWD rates varied from 0% to 5.1% among hospitals, with an overall rate of 1.89%. Three hospitals with statistically significantly higher PWD than average were identified, after case mix adjustment and correction for multiple comparisons. Hospital volume was not associated with PWD rate, except that hospitals with very few laparotomies had lower PWD rates.
Conclusions: Among Norwegian hospitals, there is considerable variation in PWD rate that cannot be explained by operation type, age or comorbidity. This warrants further investigation into possible causes, such as surgical technique, perioperative procedures or handling of complications. The risk adjusted PWD rate after laparotomy is a candidate quality indicator for Norwegian hospitals.
Keywords: patient safety; postoperative wound dehiscence; quality indicators; surgical quality.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.