OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between systems characteristics and esophagectomy mortality at low-volume hospitals BACKGROUND: High-volume hospitals have lower esophagectomy mortality rates, but receiving care at such centers is not always feasible. We examined low-volume hospitals and sought to identify characteristics of those with better outcomes. METHODS: Using national data from Medicare and the American Hospital Association, we studied 4498 elderly patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 2004 to 2007. We divided hospitals into terciles based on esophagectomy volume and examined characteristics of patients and hospitals (size, nurse ratios, and presence of advanced medical, surgical, and radiological services). Our primary outcome was mortality. We identified 5 potentially beneficial systems characteristics in our data set and used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether these characteristics were associated with lower mortality rates at low-volume hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 874 hospitals that performed esophagectomies, 83% (723) were low-volume hospitals whereas only 3% (25) were high-volume. Low-volume hospitals performed a median of 1 esophagectomy during the 4-year study period and cared for patients that were older, more likely to be minority, and more likely to have multiple comorbidities compared with high-volume centers. Low-volume hospitals that had at least 3 of 5 characteristics (high nurse ratios, lung transplantation services, complex medical oncology services, bariatric surgery services, and positron emission tomography scanners) had markedly lower mortality rates compared with low-volume hospitals with none of these characteristics (12.5% vs. 5.0%; P value = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Low-volume hospitals with certain systems characteristics seem to achieve better esophagectomy outcomes. A more comprehensive study of the beneficial characteristics of low-volume hospitals is warranted because high-volume hospitals are difficult to access for many patients. @ 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between systems characteristics and esophagectomy mortality at low-volume hospitals BACKGROUND: High-volume hospitals have lower esophagectomy mortality rates, but receiving care at such centers is not always feasible. We examined low-volume hospitals and sought to identify characteristics of those with better outcomes. METHODS: Using national data from Medicare and the American Hospital Association, we studied 4498 elderly patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 2004 to 2007. We divided hospitals into terciles based on esophagectomy volume and examined characteristics of patients and hospitals (size, nurse ratios, and presence of advanced medical, surgical, and radiological services). Our primary outcome was mortality. We identified 5 potentially beneficial systems characteristics in our data set and used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether these characteristics were associated with lower mortality rates at low-volume hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 874 hospitals that performed esophagectomies, 83% (723) were low-volume hospitals whereas only 3% (25) were high-volume. Low-volume hospitals performed a median of 1 esophagectomy during the 4-year study period and cared for patients that were older, more likely to be minority, and more likely to have multiple comorbidities compared with high-volume centers. Low-volume hospitals that had at least 3 of 5 characteristics (high nurse ratios, lung transplantation services, complex medical oncology services, bariatric surgery services, and positron emission tomography scanners) had markedly lower mortality rates compared with low-volume hospitals with none of these characteristics (12.5% vs. 5.0%; P value = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Low-volume hospitals with certain systems characteristics seem to achieve better esophagectomy outcomes. A more comprehensive study of the beneficial characteristics of low-volume hospitals is warranted because high-volume hospitals are difficult to access for many patients. @ 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
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: David C Chang; Yiyi Zhang; Debraj Mukherjee; Christopher L Wolfgang; Richard D Schulick; John L Cameron; Nita Ahuja Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: John A Cowan; Justin B Dimick; Jean-Christophe Leveque; B Gregory Thompson; Gilbert R Upchurch; Julian T Hoff Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jin Ra; E Carter Paulson; John Kucharczuk; Katrina Armstrong; Christopher Wirtalla; Rachel Rapaport-Kelz; Larry R Kaiser; Francis R Spitz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Karyn B Stitzenberg; Elin R Sigurdson; Brian L Egleston; Russell B Starkey; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Louisa G Gordon; Nicholas G Hirst; George C Mayne; David I Watson; Timothy Bright; Wang Cai; Andrew P Barbour; Bernard M Smithers; David C Whiteman; Simon Eckermann Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Silvio Däster; Savas D Soysal; Luca Koechlin; Lea Stoll; Ralph Peterli; Markus von Flüe; Christoph Ackermann Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Robert D Becher; Michael P DeWane; Nitin Sukumar; Marilyn J Stolar; Thomas M Gill; Adrian A Maung; Kevin M Schuster; Kimberly A Davis Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Zhi Ven Fong; Andrew P Loehrer; Carlos Fernández-Del Castillo; Yanik J Bababekov; Ginger Jin; Cristina R Ferrone; Andrew L Warshaw; Lara N Traeger; Matthew M Hutter; Keith D Lillemoe; David C Chang Journal: Surgery Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.982
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