Safety and feasibility of destination care for bariatric surgery: a single institution retrospective study

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing emphasis on value-based healthcare has prompted both employers and healthcare organizations to develop innovative strategies to supply high quality care to patients. One such strategy is through the bundled care payment model (BCPM). Through this model, our institution partnered with employers from across the country to provide quality care for their members. Patients traveling greater than 2 h driving time from the bariatric center were considered "destination" patients. To properly care for our destination patients, our institution created a "destination bariatric program." We sought to investigate comparative outcomes for the first 100 patients who completed the program. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient outcomes or complications between destination and local patient groups undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).

Methods and procedures: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing bariatric surgery at a MBSAQIP-accredited bariatric surgery center between May 2019 and October 2021 was conducted. Patients were divided into destination or local patient groups based on participation in the established destination surgery program. Patient demographics, perioperative clinical outcomes, and complications were compared and statistically analyzed using two-sample t-tests, Chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and univariate logistic regressions.

Results: This study identified 296 patients, which consisted of destination (n = 110) and local (n = 186) patient cohorts. Patients in the destination group had higher rates of diabetes mellitus (29.1% vs 24.2%, p = 0.029), but otherwise cohorts had similar basic demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes revealed no statistically significant associations between patient cohort (destination versus local) and ED admission (p = 0.305), hospital readmission (p = 0.893), surgical reintervention (p = 0.974), endoscopic-reintervention (p = 0.714), and patient complications in the postoperative period (30 days).

Conclusion: Participation in destination care programs for bariatric surgery was found to be both safe and feasible. These destination programs represent an opportunity to provide a broader patient population access to complex surgical care.

Keywords: Bariatric surgery; Bundled care payment models; Destination surgery; Value-based healthcare.