Literature DB >> 10493488

Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

S F Khuri1, J Daley, W Henderson, K Hur, M Hossain, D Soybel, K W Kizer, J B Aust, R H Bell, V Chong, J Demakis, P J Fabri, J O Gibbs, F Grover, K Hammermeister, G McDonald, E Passaro, L Phillips, F Scamman, J Spencer, J F Stremple.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine, in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the relation between surgical volume and outcome in eight commonly performed operations of intermediate complexity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In multihospital health care systems such as VHA, consideration is often given to closing low-volume surgical services, with the assumption that better surgical outcomes are achieved in hospitals with larger surgical volumes. Literature data to support this assumption in intermediate-complexity operations are either limited or controversial.
METHODS: The VHA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data on nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy, vascular infrainguinal reconstruction, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), lung lobectomy/pneumonectomy, open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, partial colectomy, and total hip arthroplasty were used. Pearson correlation, analysis of variance, mixed effects hierarchical logistic regression, and automatic interaction detection analysis were used to assess the association of annual procedure/specialty volume with risk-adjusted 30-day death (and stroke in CEA).
RESULTS: Eight major surgical procedures (68,631 operations) were analyzed. No statistically significant associations between procedure or specialty volume and 30-day mortality rate (or 30-day stroke rate in CEA) were found.
CONCLUSIONS: In VHA hospitals, the procedure and surgical specialty volume in eight prevalent operations of intermediate complexity are not associated with risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rate from these operations, or with the risk-adjusted 30-day stroke rate from CEA. Volume of surgery in these operations should not be used as a surrogate for quality of surgical care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10493488      PMCID: PMC1420886          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199909000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  36 in total

1.  Risk adjustment of the postoperative mortality rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: results of the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Risk Study.

Authors:  S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; K Hur; J O Gibbs; G Barbour; J Demakis; G Irvin; J F Stremple; F Grover; G McDonald; E Passaro; P J Fabri; J Spencer; K Hammermeister; J B Aust
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy in Connecticut: the impact of volume and specialty.

Authors:  S T Ruby; D Robinson; J T Lynch; H Mark
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 1.466

3.  No continuous relationship between Veterans Affairs hospital coronary artery bypass grafting surgical volume and operative mortality.

Authors:  A L Shroyer; G Marshall; B A Warner; R R Johnson; W Guo; F L Grover; K E Hammermeister
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Outcome as a function of annual coronary artery bypass graft volume. The Ad Hoc Committee on Cardiac Surgery Credentialing of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Authors:  R E Clark
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Identifying complications of care using administrative data.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni; J Daley; T Heeren; S M Foley; E S Fisher; C Duncan; J S Hughes; G A Coffman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Hospital volume, calendar age, and short term outcomes in patients undergoing repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: the Ontario experience, 1988-92.

Authors:  S W Wen; M Simunovic; J I Williams; K W Johnston; C D Naylor
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  J A Shea; M J Healey; J A Berlin; J R Clarke; P F Malet; R N Staroscik; J S Schwartz; S V Williams
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Relationship between mortality rates and hospital patient volume for Medicare patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery of the hip, knee, spine, and femur.

Authors:  H D Taylor; D A Dennis; H S Crane
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  The National Veterans Administration Surgical Risk Study: risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care.

Authors:  S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; G Barbour; P Lowry; G Irvin; J Gibbs; F Grover; K Hammermeister; J F Stremple
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 6.113

10.  Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy.

Authors:  M D Lieberman; H Kilburn; M Lindsey; M F Brennan
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  46 in total

1.  Relation of surgical volume to outcome.

Authors:  J D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Surgical quality: review of Californian measures.

Authors:  Michael S Broder; Lisa Payne Simon; Robert H Brook
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-17

3.  The Leapfrog volume criteria may fall short in identifying high-quality surgical centers.

Authors:  Caprice K Christian; Michael L Gustafson; Rebecca A Betensky; Jennifer Daley; Michael J Zinner
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 4.  The evolving science of quality measurement for hospitals: implications for studies of competition and consolidation.

Authors:  Patrick S Romano; Ryan Mutter
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2004-06

Review 5.  [A rapid review of the minimum quality problems using total knee arthroplasty as an example. Where do the magical threshold values come from?].

Authors:  D Stengel; A Ekkernkamp; J Dettori; B Hanson; K M Stürmer; H Siebert
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.000

6.  Robotic-assisted outcomes are not tied to surgeon volume and experience.

Authors:  Maria S Altieri; Jie Yang; Dana A Telem; Hao Chen; Mark Talamini; Aurora Pryor
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  An observational study of the timing of surgery, use of laparoscopy and outcomes for acute cholecystitis in the USA and UK.

Authors:  A C Murray; S Markar; H Mackenzie; O Baser; T Wiggins; A Askari; G Hanna; O Faiz; E Mayer; C Bicknell; A Darzi; R P Kiran
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  [Minimum requirements in total knee replacement. Evidence report and model calculation of the healthcare situation].

Authors:  P Schräder; T Rath
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 9.  The case against volume as a measure of quality of surgical care.

Authors:  Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Risk factors for adverse outcomes after the surgical treatment of appendicitis in adults.

Authors:  Julie A Margenthaler; Walter E Longo; Katherine S Virgo; Frank E Johnson; Charles A Oprian; William G Henderson; Jennifer Daley; Shukri F Khuri
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.