Literature DB >> 22731759

Quality of rectal cancer surgery and its relationship to surgeon and hospital caseload: a population-based study.

H Comber1, L Sharp, A Timmons, F B V Keane.   

Abstract

AIM: A population-based audit of all rectal cancers diagnosed in Ireland in 2007 has shown an inconsistent relationship between surgeon and hospital caseload and a range of quality measures. Better outcome for rectal cancer has been associated with increasing surgeon and hospital caseload, but there is less evidence of how this may relate to quality of care. Our aim was to examine how measures of quality in rectal cancer surgery related to surgeon and hospital workload and to outcome.
METHOD: All colorectal surgeons in Ireland participated in an audit of rectal cancer based on an evidence-based instrument. Data were extracted from medical records by trained coders. Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine the relationship between surgeon or hospital caseload and measures of quality of care.
RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty-one (95%) of the 614 rectal cancers diagnosed in Ireland in 2007 were audited; 49 hospitals and 86 surgeons participated. Ten (28%) hospitals treated fewer than five cases and seven fewer than three. A positive relationship between caseload and quality was seen for a few measures, more frequently for hospital than surgeon caseload. The relationship between caseload and quality of care was inconsistent, suggesting these measures do not represent a single dimension of quality. One-year survival was negatively associated with hospital caseload. There was no statistically significant relationship between survival and measures of quality of care. DISCUSSION: Quality of care was inconsistently influenced by surgeon and hospital caseload. Caseload may affect only one aspect of surgical management, such as the quality of preoperative workup, and is not necessarily related to the quality of other hospital care. Simple measures of outcome, such as survival, cannot represent the complexity of this relationship.
© 2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22731759     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03145.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  4 in total

1.  Completeness of case ascertainment at the Irish National Cancer Registry.

Authors:  K O'Brien; H Comber; L Sharp
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2013-08-17       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  The impact of the mesorectal apparent diffusion coefficient value on surgical difficulty in laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Hirofumi Suzumura; Masashi Tsuruta; Hirotoshi Hasegawa; Koji Okabayashi; Takashi Ishida; Yusuke Asada; Akitsugu Makino; Shigeo Okuda; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  The impact of general/visceral obesity on completion of mesorectum and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: A STARD-compliant article.

Authors:  Bingchen Chen; Yuanchuan Zhang; Shuang Zhao; Tinghan Yang; Qingbin Wu; Chengwu Jin; Yazhou He; Ziqiang Wang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Center-Level Procedure Volume Does Not Predict Failure-to-Rescue After Severe Complications of Oncologic Colon and Rectal Surgery.

Authors:  Miriam Lillo-Felipe; Rebecka Ahl Hulme; Maximilian Peter Forssten; Gary A Bass; Yang Cao; Peter Matthiessen; Shahin Mohseni
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.352

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.