S R Finlayson1, J D Birkmeyer, A N Tosteson, R F Nease. 1. VA Outcomes Group, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, VT 05001, USA. samuel.r.g.finlayson@dartmouth.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regionalization of high-risk surgical procedures to selected high-volume centers has been proposed as a way to reduce operative mortality. For patients, however, travel to regional centers may be undesirable despite the expected mortality benefit. OBJECTIVE: To determine the strength of patient preferences for local care. DESIGN: Using a scenario of potentially resectable pancreatic cancer and a modification of the standard gamble utility assessment technique, we determined the level of additional operative mortality risk patients would accept to undergo surgery at a local rather than at a distant regional hospital in which operative mortality was assumed to be 3%. We used multiple logistic regression to identify predictors of willingness to accept additional risk. SUBJECTS: One hundred consecutive patients (95% male, median age 65) awaiting elective surgery at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Jct., VT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Additional operative mortality risk patients would accept to keep care local. RESULTS: All patients preferred local surgery if the operative mortality risk at the local hospital were the same as the regional hospital (3%). If local operative mortality risk were 6%, which is twice the regional risk, 45 of 100 patients would still prefer local surgery. If local risk were 12%, 23 of 100 patients would prefer local surgery. If local risk were 18%, 18 of 100 patients would prefer local surgery. Further increases in local risk did not result in large changes in the proportion of patients preferring local care. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients prefer to undergo surgery locally even when travel to a regional center would result in lower operative mortality risk. Therefore, policy makers should consider patient preferences when assessing the expected value of regionalizing major surgery.
BACKGROUND: Regionalization of high-risk surgical procedures to selected high-volume centers has been proposed as a way to reduce operative mortality. For patients, however, travel to regional centers may be undesirable despite the expected mortality benefit. OBJECTIVE: To determine the strength of patient preferences for local care. DESIGN: Using a scenario of potentially resectable pancreatic cancer and a modification of the standard gamble utility assessment technique, we determined the level of additional operative mortality risk patients would accept to undergo surgery at a local rather than at a distant regional hospital in which operative mortality was assumed to be 3%. We used multiple logistic regression to identify predictors of willingness to accept additional risk. SUBJECTS: One hundred consecutive patients (95% male, median age 65) awaiting elective surgery at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Jct., VT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Additional operative mortality risk patients would accept to keep care local. RESULTS: All patients preferred local surgery if the operative mortality risk at the local hospital were the same as the regional hospital (3%). If local operative mortality risk were 6%, which is twice the regional risk, 45 of 100 patients would still prefer local surgery. If local risk were 12%, 23 of 100 patients would prefer local surgery. If local risk were 18%, 18 of 100 patients would prefer local surgery. Further increases in local risk did not result in large changes in the proportion of patients preferring local care. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients prefer to undergo surgery locally even when travel to a regional center would result in lower operative mortality risk. Therefore, policy makers should consider patient preferences when assessing the expected value of regionalizing major surgery.
Authors: Jason D Wright; Yongmei Huang; Alexander Melamed; Ana I Tergas; Caryn M St Clair; June Y Hou; Fady Khoury-Collado; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Clifford Y Ko; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Mark S Talamonti; Cord Sturgeon Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Matthew Mossanen; Jason Izard; Jonathan L Wright; Jonathan D Harper; Michael P Porter; Kenn B Daratha; Sarah K Holt; John L Gore Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anai N Kothari; Barbara A Blanco; Sarah A Brownlee; Ann E Evans; Victor A Chang; Gerard J Abood; Raffaella Settimi; Daniela S Raicu; Paul C Kuo Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 3.982