OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether "best hospitals," as defined by the US News & World Report or HealthGrades, have lower mortality rates than all other American hospitals for cancer surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Medicare database (2005-2006). PATIENTS: All patients with a diagnosis of malignancy who underwent pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and colectomy (n = 82,724). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Risk-adjusted mortality rates at best hospitals according to both the US News & World Report and HealthGrades, was compared with all other US hospitals, adjusting for differences in patient factors and surgical acuity. Risk-adjusted mortality rates between best hospitals and all other hospitals was compared after controlling for differences in hospital volume. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted mortality was significantly lower in US News & World Report best hospitals for all 3 procedures: pancreatectomy (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.58), esophagectomy (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62), and colectomy (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86). Risk-adjusted mortality was significantly lower in HealthGrades best hospitals for colectomy (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95). However, after accounting for hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality was only significantly lower at the US News & World Report best hospitals for colectomy (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99) and was not significantly lower at HealthGrades best hospitals for any of the 3 oncologic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Publicly marketed hospital rating systems of surgical quality such as the US News & World Report "America's Best Hospitals" and HealthGrades "Best Hospitals" may identify high-quality hospitals for some oncologic surgeries. However, these ratings fail to identify other high-volume hospitals of equal quality.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether "best hospitals," as defined by the US News & World Report or HealthGrades, have lower mortality rates than all other American hospitals for cancer surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Medicare database (2005-2006). PATIENTS: All patients with a diagnosis of malignancy who underwent pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and colectomy (n = 82,724). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Risk-adjusted mortality rates at best hospitals according to both the US News & World Report and HealthGrades, was compared with all other US hospitals, adjusting for differences in patient factors and surgical acuity. Risk-adjusted mortality rates between best hospitals and all other hospitals was compared after controlling for differences in hospital volume. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted mortality was significantly lower in US News & World Report best hospitals for all 3 procedures: pancreatectomy (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.58), esophagectomy (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62), and colectomy (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86). Risk-adjusted mortality was significantly lower in HealthGrades best hospitals for colectomy (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95). However, after accounting for hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality was only significantly lower at the US News & World Report best hospitals for colectomy (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99) and was not significantly lower at HealthGrades best hospitals for any of the 3 oncologic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Publicly marketed hospital rating systems of surgical quality such as the US News & World Report "America's Best Hospitals" and HealthGrades "Best Hospitals" may identify high-quality hospitals for some oncologic surgeries. However, these ratings fail to identify other high-volume hospitals of equal quality.
Authors: Ines Gockel; Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand; Michael Arras; Elke Maria Schreiber; Hauke Lang Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Zeling Chau; James K West; Zheng Zhou; Theodore McDade; Jillian K Smith; Sing-Chau Ng; Tara S Kent; Mark P Callery; A James Moser; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Ajay Aggarwal; Daniel Lewis; Malcolm Mason; Arnie Purushotham; Richard Sullivan; Jan van der Meulen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 41.316