OBJECTIVES: High-volume hospitals have lower mortality rates for a wide range of surgical procedures, including cystectomy for bladder cancer. However, the processes of care that mediate this effect are unknown. We sought to identify the processes that underlie the volume-outcome relationship for cystectomy. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data set, we used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 procedure codes to identify 4465 patients who underwent cystectomy for bladder cancer between 1992 and 1999. The preoperative and perioperative processes of care were abstracted from the inpatient, outpatient, and physician files using the procedure and diagnosis codes available through 2002. Logistic models were used to assess the relationship between the process and hospital volume, adjusting for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Substantial variation was found in the use of specific processes of care across the hospital volume strata. High-volume hospitals had greater rates of preoperative cardiac testing (odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 to 1.98), intraoperative arterial monitoring (OR 3.73, 95% CI 3.11 to 4.46), and the use of a continent diversion (OR 4.01, 95% CI 3.03 to 5.30), among many others. Patients treated at low-volume hospitals were 48% more likely to die in the postoperative period (4.9% versus 3.5%, adjusted OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13). Differences in the use of processes of care explained 23% of this volume-mortality effect. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume and low-volume hospitals differ with regard to many processes of care before, during, and after radical cystectomy. Although these practices have partly explained the volume-outcome relationships for cystectomy, the primary mechanisms underlying this effect remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES: High-volume hospitals have lower mortality rates for a wide range of surgical procedures, including cystectomy for bladder cancer. However, the processes of care that mediate this effect are unknown. We sought to identify the processes that underlie the volume-outcome relationship for cystectomy. METHODS: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data set, we used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 procedure codes to identify 4465 patients who underwent cystectomy for bladder cancer between 1992 and 1999. The preoperative and perioperative processes of care were abstracted from the inpatient, outpatient, and physician files using the procedure and diagnosis codes available through 2002. Logistic models were used to assess the relationship between the process and hospital volume, adjusting for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Substantial variation was found in the use of specific processes of care across the hospital volume strata. High-volume hospitals had greater rates of preoperative cardiac testing (odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 to 1.98), intraoperative arterial monitoring (OR 3.73, 95% CI 3.11 to 4.46), and the use of a continent diversion (OR 4.01, 95% CI 3.03 to 5.30), among many others. Patients treated at low-volume hospitals were 48% more likely to die in the postoperative period (4.9% versus 3.5%, adjusted OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13). Differences in the use of processes of care explained 23% of this volume-mortality effect. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume and low-volume hospitals differ with regard to many processes of care before, during, and after radical cystectomy. Although these practices have partly explained the volume-outcome relationships for cystectomy, the primary mechanisms underlying this effect remain unclear.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; David Taub; Rodney L Dunn; Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; James E Montie; Willie Underwood; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Linda S Elting; Curtis Pettaway; B Nebiyou Bekele; H Barton Grossman; Catherine Cooksley; Elenir B C Avritscher; Kamaldeen Saldin; Colin P N Dinney Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Craig Earle; Feng Xu; Katherine S Panageas; K Robin Yabroff; Robert E Bristow; Edward L Trimble; Joan L Warren Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Harry W Herr; James R Faulkner; H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Ralph deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; E David Crawford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Therese A Stukel; Andrea E Siewers; Philip P Goodney; David E Wennberg; F Lee Lucas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Zainab Siddiq; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Shazia Bashir; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.585
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: Marco Bianchi; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; Malek Meskawi; Jan Schmitges; Shahrokh F Shariat; Alberto Briganti; Zhe Tian; Claudio Jeldres; Shyam Sukumar; James O Peabody; Markus Graefen; Paul Perrotte; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Matthew E Nielsen; Katherine Mallin; Mark A Weaver; Bryan Palis; Andrew Stewart; David P Winchester; Matthew I Milowsky Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 5.588