METHODS: Prospective, mixed-methods process evaluation to answer the following: (1) how was the collaborative delivered by the faculty and received, understood and enacted by the participants; (2) what influenced teams' ability to improve care for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy? We collected and analysed a range of data including field notes, ethnographic observations of meetings, and project documentation. Analysis was based on the framework approach, informed by Normalisation Process Theory, and involved the creation of comparative case studies based on hospital performance during the project.
RESULTS: Chole-QuIC was delivered as planned and was well received and understood by participants. Four hospitals were identified as highly successful, based upon a substantial increase in the number of patients having surgery in line with national guidance. Conversely, four hospitals were identified as challenged, achieving no significant improvement. The comparative analysis indicate that six inter-related influences appeared most associated with improvement: (1) achieving clarity of purpose amongst site leads and key stakeholders; (2) capacity to lead and effective project support; (3) ideas to action; (4) learning from own and others' experience; (5) creating additional capacity to do emergency cholecystectomies; and (6) coordinating/managing the patient pathway.
CONCLUSION: Collaborative-based quality improvement is a viable strategy for emergency surgery but success requires the deployment of effective clinical strategies in conjunction with improvement strategies. In particular, achieving clarity of purpose about proposed changes amongst key stakeholders was a vital precursor to improvement, enabling the creation of additional surgical capacity and new pathways to be implemented effectively. Protected time, testing ideas, and the ability to learn quickly from data and experience were associated with greater impact within this cohort.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of all histopathology reports for cholecystectomies (laparoscopic and open) undertaken over a period of 12 years (1997-2008) in a single teaching hospital.
RESULTS: A total of 1,375 gallbladder specimens were sent for histopathological analysis, with 7 (0.5%) being reported as malignant while only three (0.2%) were found to contain primary gallbladder carcinoma. Other premalignant findings included two specimens with dysplastic changes of the mucosa and one tubulovillous adenoma with a dysplastic epithelium. From the ten malignant and premalignant specimens, seven were diagnosed pre-operatively, two were suspected intra-operatively and one was diagnosed with dysplastic changes on the histopathology report post-operatively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports earlier research carried out in the UK and the demographic difference does not affect the impact of the histology examination on cholecystectomy specimens in diagnosing this disease. A selective policy is recommended in Malaysia.