Literature DB >> 20829079

The relationship between case volume, care quality, and outcomes of complex cancer surgery.

Andrew D Auerbach1, Judith Maselli, Jonathan Carter, Penelope S Pekow, Peter K Lindenauer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: How case volume and quality of care relate to each other and to results of complex cancer surgery is not well-understood. STUDY
DESIGN: Observational cohort of 14,170 patients 18 years or older who underwent pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, or pelvic surgery for cancer between October 1, 2003 and September 1, 2005 at a US hospital participating in a large benchmarking database. Case volumes were estimated within our dataset. Quality was measured by determining whether ideal patients did not receive appropriate perioperative medications (such as antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections), both as individual "missed"measures and as overall number missed. We used hierarchical models to estimate effects of volume and quality on 30-day readmission, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs.
RESULTS: After adjustment, we noted no consistent associations between higher hospital or surgeon volume and mortality, readmission, length of stay, or costs. Adherence to individual measures was not consistently associated with improvement in readmission, mortality, or other outcomes. For example, continuing antimicrobials past 24 hours was associated with longer length of stay (21.5% higher, 95% CI, 19.5-23.6%) and higher costs (17% higher, 95% CI, 16-19%). In contrast, overall adherence, although not associated with differences in mortality or readmission, was consistently associated with longer length of stay (7.4% longer with 1 missed measure and 16.4% longer with ≥2) and higher costs (5% higher with 1 missed measure, and 11% higher with ≥2).
CONCLUSIONS: Although hospital and surgeon volume were not associated with outcomes, lower overall adherence to quality measures is associated with higher costs, but not improved outcomes. This finding might provide a rationale for improving care systems by maximizing care consistency, even if outcomes are not affected.
Copyright © 2010 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20829079      PMCID: PMC2989972          DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.07.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  40 in total

1.  Volume thresholds and hospital characteristics in the United States.

Authors:  Anne Elixhauser; Claudia Steiner; Irene Fraser
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  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

3.  Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Missed opportunities for osteoporosis treatment in patients hospitalized for hip fracture.

Authors:  Lee A Jennings; Andrew D Auerbach; Judith Maselli; Penelope S Pekow; Peter K Lindenauer; Sei J Lee
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Is surgery getting safer? National trends in operative mortality.

Authors:  Philip P Goodney; Andrea E Siewers; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; David E Wennberg; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Effects of hospital volume on life expectancy after selected cancer operations in older adults: a decision analysis.

Authors:  Emily V A Finlayson; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection.

Authors:  Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Lillian Hsieh; Peter B Bach; Jose G Guillem; Colin B Begg
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.454

8.  Procedural volume as a marker of quality for CABG surgery.

Authors:  Eric D Peterson; Laura P Coombs; Elizabeth R DeLong; Constance K Haan; T Bruce Ferguson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  David C Hodgson; Wei Zhang; Alan M Zaslavsky; Charles S Fuchs; William E Wright; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-05-21       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.

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

View more
  9 in total

1.  Examining the transferability of colon and rectal operative experience on outcomes following laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Authors:  Jennie K Lee; Aristithes G Doumouras; Jeremy E Springer; Cagla Eskicioglu; Nalin Amin; Margherita Cadeddu; Dennis Hong
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Surgeon volume is associated with cost and variation in surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Nitin B Jain; Ifedayo Kuye; Laurence D Higgins; Jon J P Warner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000-2011.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Alan Karthikesalingam; Sri Thrumurthy; Donald E Low
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Hospital readmission is associated with poor survival after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Felix G Fernandez; Onkar Khullar; Seth D Force; Renjian Jiang; Allan Pickens; David Howard; Kevin Ward; Theresa Gillespie
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Comparison of the use of the top-ranked cancer hospitals between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

Authors:  Daeho Kim; David J Meyers; Momotazur Rahman; Amal N Trivedi
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 2.229

6.  Understanding and benchmarking health service achievement of policy goals for chronic disease.

Authors:  Erica Bell; Bastian Seidel
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-09-29       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 7.  Is the readmission rate a valid quality indicator? A review of the evidence.

Authors:  Claudia Fischer; Hester F Lingsma; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen; Dionne S Kringos; Niek S Klazinga; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A cross-sectional retrospective analysis of the regionalization of complex surgery.

Authors:  James Studnicki; Christopher Craver; Christopher M Blanchette; John W Fisher; Sara Shahbazi
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2014-08-16       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Transplant center characteristics and survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in adults.

Authors:  Navneet S Majhail; Lih-Wen Mau; Pintip Chitphakdithai; Ellen M Denzen; Steven Joffe; Stephanie J Lee; Charles F LeMaistre; Fausto Loberiza; Susan K Parsons; Ramona Repaczki-Jones; Pam Robinett; J Douglas Rizzo; Elizabeth Murphy; Brent Logan; Jennifer Le-Rademacher
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 5.483

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.