Objective: To analyze the rate of infections and complications after surgeon-performed, largely ultrasound-guided, central venous catheter (CVC) placement in a pediatric population and to identify patients at high risk of complications. Methods: All children aged between 4 months and 19 years with a percutaneous CVC inserted between January 1, 2000, and July 31, 2013, were included. Patient records were reviewed retrospectively for the occurrence of infection and other complications until CVC removal or the last outpatient clinic visit and compared between patient groups and with the recent literature. Results: A total of 538 CVCs were placed in 345 patients. Eight patients (1.5%) suffered complications during placement. There were 84 cases of a suspected CVC infection (15.6%). Catheter-related infections with a positive catheter tip culture occurred in 25 cases (4.6%). Older patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.98) or patients with a double-lumen 7 French Bard-Hickman catheter (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.11-1.00) had a significantly lower risk of infection. Older patients (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99) and patients with beta-thalassemia (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-0.71) also had a significantly lower risk of suspected infection. Conclusion: In general, infection rates in our series were similar to those in the recent literature. Younger patients seem to be at higher risk for CVC removal because of infection prior to the end of treatment. Patients with beta-thalassemia or receiving a double-lumen 7F Bard-Hickman catheter had a lower risk of infection.@en

Objective: To assess the impact of quality of care and other hospital information on patients' choices between hospitals. Methods: 665 former surgical patients were invited to respond to an Internet-based questionnaire including a choice-based conjoint analysis. Each patient was presented with 12 different comparisons of 2 hospitals, with each hospital characterized by 6 attributes containing 2 levels. Hospital attributes were included if frequently reported by patients as most important for future hospital choices. These included both general hospital information (e.g., atmosphere), information on quality of care (e.g., percentage of patients with "textbook outcome"), and surgery-specific information (e.g., possibility for minimally invasive procedure). Hierarchial Bayes estimation was used to estimate the utilities for each attribute level for each patient. Based on the ranges of these utilities, the relative importance of each hospital attribute was determined for each participant as a measure of the impact on patients' choices. Results: 308 (46.3%) questionnaires were available for analysis. Of the hospital attributes that patients considered, surgery-specific information on average had the highest relative importance (25.7 [23.9-27.5]), regardless of gender, age, and education. Waiting time and hospital atmosphere were considered least important. The attribute concerning the percentage of patients with "textbook outcomes" had the second greatest impact (18.3 [16.9-19.6]), which was similar for patients with different adverse outcome experience. Conclusions: Surgery-specific and quality of care information are more important than general information when patients choose between hospitals.@en

To assess whether patients use information on quality of care when choosing a hospital for surgery compared with more general hospital information. In this cross-sectional study in 3 Dutch hospitals, questionnaires were sent to 2122 patients who underwent 1 of 6 elective surgical procedures in 2005-2006 (aorta reconstruction [for treatment of aneurysm], cholecystectomy, colon resection, inguinal hernia repair, esophageal resection, thyroid surgery). Patients were asked which information they had used to choose this hospital and which information they intended to use if they would need similar surgical treatment in the future. In total, 1329 questionnaires were available for analysis (response rate 62.6%). Most patients indicated having used the hospital's good reputation (69.1%) and friendly hospital atmosphere (63.3%) to choose a hospital. For future choices, most patients intended to use the fact that they were already treated in that hospital (79.3%) and the hospital's good reputation (74.1%). Regarding quality-of-care information, patients preferred a summary measure (% patients with ''textbook outcome'') over separate more detailed measures (52.1% v. 38.0%, χ2 = 291, P < 0.01). For future choices, patients intend to use more information items than in 2005-2006, both in absolute terms (9 v. 4 items, t = 38.3, P < 0.01) as relative to the total number of available items (41.3% [40.1%-42.5%] v. 29.2% [28.1%-30.2%]). Patients intended to use more information for future choices than they used for past choices. For future choices, most patients prefer a summary measure on quality of care over more detailed measures but seem to value that they were already treated in that hospital or a hospital's good reputation even more.

@en

Objective: To assess whether patients who experience adverse outcomes during hospitalisation or after discharge differ in the information they would use for future choices of a hospital for surgery compared with patients without any adverse outcomes. Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire study, including questions on (1) adverse outcome occurrence during hospitalisation and after discharge, (2) information patients would use for future hospital choice and (3) priority of information. Setting: Three hospitals in the western part of The Netherlands. Study sample All 2122 patients who underwent elective aorta reconstruction (for treatment of aneurysm), cholecystectomy, colon resection, inguinal hernia repair, oesophageal resection or thyroid surgery in the period 2005e2006, of whom 1329 (62.6%) responded. Results: Patients who experienced postdischarge adverse outcomes intend to use more information items to choose a future hospital (on average 1.6 items more). They more often would use the item on information provision during hospitalisation (OR 2.35 (1.37 to 4.03)) and information on various quality-of-care measures, compared with patients without adverse outcomes. Patients who experienced in-hospital adverse outcomes would not use more information items but more often would use the item on mortality after surgery (OR 1.93 (1.27 to 2.94)) and extended hospital stay (OR 1.61 (1.10 to 2.36)). However, when asked for priority of information, previous treatment in that hospital is mentioned as the most important item by most patients (32%), regardless of adverse outcome occurrence, followed by hospital reputation and waiting time. Conclusions: Adverse outcome experience may change the information patients use (on quality of care) to choose a future hospital.@en