Literature DB >> 10024124

Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization.

S R Finlayson1, J D Birkmeyer, A N Tosteson, R F Nease.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10024124     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199902000-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  88 in total

1.  Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery.

Authors:  Jonathan F Finks; Nicholas H Osborne; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Potential Consequences of Minimum-Volume Standards for Hospitals Treating Women With Ovarian Cancer.

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

3.  Superior outcomes for rural patients after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair supports a systematic regional approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm care.

Authors:  Matthew W Mell; Christie Bartels; Amy Kind; Glen Leverson; Maureen Smith
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 4.268

4.  Market capture of inpatient perioperative services using DEA.

Authors:  Liam O'Neill; Franklin Dexter
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2004-11

Review 5.  Outcomes in oncologic surgery: does volume make a difference?

Authors:  David J Bentrem; Murray F Brennan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Laparoscopic Colectomy and the General Surgeon.

Authors:  Jesse Moore; Andrew Pellet; Neil Hyman
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Extent of surgery affects survival for papillary thyroid cancer.

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

8.  Hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery volume and patient mortality, 1998-2000.

Authors:  Saif S Rathore; Andrew J Epstein; Kevin G M Volpp; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Identification of underserved areas for urologic cancer care.

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

10.  Characterizing the role of a high-volume cancer resection ecosystem on low-volume, high-quality surgical care.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.