Ann Surg Treat Res.  2024 Dec;107(6):305-314. 10.4174/astr.2024.107.6.305.

Development of the Korean Quality Improvement Platform in Surgery (K-QIPS) program: a nationwide project to improve surgical quality and patient safety

• Lee JM
• Han IW
• Kwon OC
• Seo HR
• Jung J
• Yoon SJ
• Han A
• Lee J
• Lee SY
• Seo H
• Kwon W
• Eom BW
• Lee IS
• Park JW
• Lee HW
• Hwang HK
• Lee SH
• Shin EJ
• Lee WY

• KMID: 2562306
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2024.107.6.305

Abstract

Purpose
Improvements in surgical quality and patient safety are critical components of the healthcare system. Despite excellent cancer survival rates in Korea, there is a lack of standardized postoperative complication management systems. To address this gap, the Korean Surgical Society initiated the development of the Korean Quality Improvement Platform in Surgery (K-QIPS) program.
Methods
K-QIPS was successfully launched in 87 general hospitals. This nationwide surgical quality improvement program covers 5 major surgical fields: gastric surgery, colorectal surgery, hepatectomy and liver transplantation, pancreatectomy, and kidney transplantation.
Results
Common and surgery-specific complication platforms will be developed, and the program will work toward the implementation of an artificial intelligence-based complication prediction system and the provision of evidence-based feedback to participating institutions. K-QIPS represents a significant step toward improving surgical quality and patient safety in Korea.
Conclusion
This program aims to reduce postoperative complications, mortality, and medical costs by providing a standardized platform for complication management and prediction. The successful implementation of this nationwide project may provide a good model for other countries that are required to improve surgical outcomes and patient care.

Keyword

Health policy; Public health; Patient safety; Postoperative complications; Quality improvements

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Schematic representation of a clinical data integration and prediction system for surgical complications. Workflow of a comprehensive clinical data management and prediction system designed to monitor and predict surgical complications across various types of surgeries. The system comprises 3 main components: individual institutions, a host organization, and the Korean Health Information Service (KHIS). E-CRF, electronic case report form; AI, artificial intelligence; CDSS, clinical decision support system; TPL, transplantation.

• 

  Fig. 2 Data flow and research structure of the Korean Quality Improvement Platform in Surgery (K-QIPS). All clinical data is collected for Korea Surgical Research Funds by surgical clinical reviewers (SCRs). Data import, export, anonymization, management, and auditing are carried out through the Data Management Committee. KSS, Korean Surgical Society.

Reference

1. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, Barbour G, Lowry P, Irvin G, et al. The National Veterans Administrat ion Surgical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care. J Am Coll Surg. 1995; 180:519–531. PMID: 7749526.

2. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson WG. The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Arch Surg. 2002; 137:20–27. PMID: 11772210.

3. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, Hur K, Gibbs JO, Barbour G, et al. Risk adjustment of the postoperative mortality rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study. J Am Coll Surg. 1997; 185:315–327. PMID: 9328380.

4. Daley J, Forbes MG, Young GJ, Charns MP, Gibbs JO, Hur K, et al. Validating risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: site visit assessment of process and structure. National VA Surgical Risk Study. J Am Coll Surg. 1997; 185:341–351. PMID: 9328382.

5. Dyas AR, Bronsert MR, Henderson WG, Stuart CM, Pradhan N, Colborn KL, et al. A comparison of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the Society of Thoracic Surgery Cardiac Surgery preoperative risk models: a cohort study. Int J Surg. 2023; 109:2334–2343. PMID: 37204450.

6. Anazawa T, Paruch JL, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Ko CY, Cohen ME, et al. Comparison of national operative mortality in gastroenterological surgery using web-based prospective data entry systems. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94:e2194. PMID: 26656350.

7. Endo I, Kumamoto T, Matsuyama R. Postoperative complications and mortality: are they unavoidable? Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017; 1:160–163. PMID: 29863116.

8. Marubashi S, Liu JY, Miyata H, Cohen ME, Ko CY, Seto Y, et al. Surgical quality improvement programs in Japan and USA: report from the collaborative projects between Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Surgery and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019; 3:343–351. PMID: 31346572.

9. Terui K, Hirahara N, Tachimori H, Kato N, Fujishiro J, Watanabe E, et al. Development and validation of risk models for mortality and morbidity in 12 major pediatric surgical procedures: a study from the National Clinical Database-Pediatric of Japan. J Pediatr Surg. 2020; 55:2064–2070. PMID: 32507636.

10. Ma M, Liu Y, Gotoh M, Takahashi A, Marubashi S, Seto Y, et al. Validation study of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator for two procedures in Japan. Am J Surg. 2021; 222:877–881. PMID: 34175114.

11. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 1998; 280:1339–1346. PMID: 9794315.

12. Kim JT. Application of machine and deep learning algorithms in intelligent clinical decision support systems in healthcare. J Health Med Inform. 2018; 9:321.

13. Sheikhtaheri A, Orooji A, Pazouki A, Beitollahi M. A clinical decision support system for predicting the early complications of one-anastomosis gastric bypass surgery. Obes Surg. 2019; 29:2276–2286. PMID: 31028626.

14. Fernandes M, Vieira SM, Leite F, Palos C, Finkelstein S, Sousa JM. Clinical decision support systems for triage in the emergency department using intelligent systems: a review. Artif Intell Med. 2020; 102:101762. PMID: 31980099.

15. Peiffer-Smadja N, Rawson TM, Ahmad R, Buchard A, Georgiou P, Lescure FX, et al. Machine learning for clinical decision support in infectious diseases: a narrative review of current applications. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020; 26:584–595. PMID: 31539636.

16. Papandria D, Fisher JG, Kenney BD, Dykes M, Nelson A, Diefenbach KA. Orientation in perpetuity: an online clinical decision support system for surgical residents. J Surg Res. 2020; 245:649–655. PMID: 31542695.

17. Berge GT, Granmo OC, Tveit TO, Munkvold BE, Ruthjersen AL, Sharma J. Machine learning-driven clinical decision support system for concept-based searching: a field trial in a Norwegian hospital. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023; 23:5. PMID: 36627624.

18. Belard A, Buchman T, Forsberg J, Potter BK, Dente CJ, Kirk A, et al. Precision diagnosis: a view of the clinical decision support systems (CDSS) landscape through the lens of critical care. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017; 31:261–271. PMID: 26902081.

19. Fink AS, Campbell DA Jr, Mentzer RM Jr, Henderson WG, Daley J, Bannister J, et al. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Ann Surg. 2002; 236:344–354. PMID: 12192321.

20. Pearse RM, Rhodes A, Moreno R, Pelosi P, Spies C, Vallet B, et al. EuSOS: European surgical outcomes study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011; 28:454–456. PMID: 21544023.

21. Raju RS, Guy GS, Field JB, Kiroff GK, Babidge W, Maddern GJ. Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality: concordance between reported and audited clinical events and delays in management in surgical mortality patients. ANZ J Surg. 2014; 84:618–623. PMID: 24754257.

22. Jawad M, Pearse R, Rhodes A, Seeman-Lodding H, Baigi A, Chew MS, et al. Swedish Surgical Outcome Study (SweSOS), a sub study of the European Surgical Outcomes Study (EuSOS). Characteristics and outcome of the Swedish subset of EuSOS to identify the predictors of short- and long-term mortality in Sweden. Analytical, descriptive and prospective cohort study: 17AP1-4. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014; 31:248–249.

23. Ahmad T, Beilstein CM, Aldecoa C, Moreno RP, Molnár Z, Novak-Jankovic V, et al. Variation in haemodynamic monitoring for major surgery in European nations: secondary analysis of the EuSOS dataset. Perioper Med (Lond). 2015; 4:8. PMID: 26405521.

24. Prowle JR, Kam EP, Ahmad T, Smith NC, Protopapa K, Pearse RM. Preoperative renal dysfunction and mortality after non-cardiac surgery. Br J Surg. 2016; 103:1316–1325. PMID: 27346181.

25. Desautels T, Calvert J, Hoffman J, Jay M, Kerem Y, Shieh L, et al. Prediction of sepsis in the intensive care unit with minimal electronic health record data: a machine learning approach. JMIR Med Inform. 2016; 4:e28. PMID: 27694098.

26. Han C, Park CM, Kim Y, Kang S, Park TJ, Yoon D. Approach for electronic medical record data analysis. J Health Info Stat. 2022; 47(Suppl 1):S1–S8.

27. Lim SG. National health insurance fiscal projections 2023–2032. National Assembly Budget Office;2023.

28. Lee HK, Choi JE. Development of a complication risk prediction model for cholecystectomy to improve surgical quality. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency;2017.