Rachelle N Damle1, Christopher W Macomber2, Julie M Flahive3, Jennifer S Davids4, W Brian Sweeney4, Paul R Sturrock4, Justin A Maykel4, Heena P Santry3, Karim Alavi4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. Electronic address: rachelledamle@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. 3. Center for Outcomes Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. 4. Division of Colorectal Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgeon volume may be an important predictor of quality and cost outcomes. We evaluated the association between surgeon volume and quality and cost of surgical care in patients with colon cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent resection for colon cancer, using data from the University HealthSystem Consortium from 2008 to 2011. Outcomes evaluated included use of laparoscopy, ICU admission, postoperative complications, length of stay, and total direct hospital costs by surgeon volume. Surgeon volume was categorized according to high (HVS), medium (MVS), and low (LVS) average annual volumes. RESULTS: A total of 17,749 patients were included in this study. The average age of the cohort was 65 years and 51% of patients were female. After adjustment for potential confounders, compared with LVS, HVS and MVS were more likely to use laparoscopy (HVS, odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.15, 1.39; MVS, OR 1.16 95% CI 1.65, 1.26). Postoperative complications were significantly lower in patients operated on by HVS than LVS (OR 0.77 95% CI 0.76, 0.91). The HVS patients were less likely to require reoperation than those in the LVS group (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53, 0.92) Total direct costs were $927 (95% CI -$1,567 to -$287) lower in the HVS group compared with the LVS group. CONCLUSIONS: Higher quality, lower cost care was achieved by HVS in patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer. An assessment of differences in processes of care by surgeon volume may help further define the mechanism for this observed association.
BACKGROUND: Surgeon volume may be an important predictor of quality and cost outcomes. We evaluated the association between surgeon volume and quality and cost of surgical care in patients with colon cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent resection for colon cancer, using data from the University HealthSystem Consortium from 2008 to 2011. Outcomes evaluated included use of laparoscopy, ICU admission, postoperative complications, length of stay, and total direct hospital costs by surgeon volume. Surgeon volume was categorized according to high (HVS), medium (MVS), and low (LVS) average annual volumes. RESULTS: A total of 17,749 patients were included in this study. The average age of the cohort was 65 years and 51% of patients were female. After adjustment for potential confounders, compared with LVS, HVS and MVS were more likely to use laparoscopy (HVS, odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.15, 1.39; MVS, OR 1.16 95% CI 1.65, 1.26). Postoperative complications were significantly lower in patients operated on by HVS than LVS (OR 0.77 95% CI 0.76, 0.91). The HVS patients were less likely to require reoperation than those in the LVS group (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53, 0.92) Total direct costs were $927 (95% CI -$1,567 to -$287) lower in the HVS group compared with the LVS group. CONCLUSIONS: Higher quality, lower cost care was achieved by HVS in patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer. An assessment of differences in processes of care by surgeon volume may help further define the mechanism for this observed association.
Authors: Adrian T Billeter; Hiram C Polk; Samuel F Hohmann; Motaz Qadan; Donald E Fry; Jeffrey R Jorden; Michael H McCafferty; Susan Galandiuk Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Hossein Masoomi; Celeste Y Kang; Anne Chen; Steven Mills; Matthew O Dolich; Joseph C Carmichael; Michael J Stamos Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-05-27 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: J W Harmon; D G Tang; T A Gordon; H M Bowman; M A Choti; H S Kaufman; J S Bender; M D Duncan; T H Magnuson; K D Lillemoe; J L Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert P Sticca; Steven R Alberts; Michelle R Mahoney; Daniel J Sargent; Lisa M Finstuen; Garth D Nelson; Timothy M Husted; Jan Franko; Charles D Goldman; Barbara A Pockaj Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rachelle N Damle; Julie M Flahive; Jennifer S Davids; W Brian Sweeney; Paul R Sturrock; Justin A Maykel; Karim Alavi Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: K Freischlag; M Adam; M Turner; J Watson; B Ezekian; P M Schroder; C Mantyh; J Migaly Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; Molly M Ford; M Benjamin Hopkins; Roberta L Muldoon; Jonathan P Wanderer; Alexander A Parikh; Timothy M Geiger Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: David Yi; John R T Monson; Cathy C Stankiewicz; Sam Atallah; Neil J Finkler Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Sook Y Chan; Pasithorn A Suwanabol; Rachelle N Damle; Jennifer S Davids; Paul R Sturrock; W Brian Sweeney; Justin A Maykel; Karim Alavi Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: S Pucciarelli; A Chiappetta; G Giacomazzo; A Barina; N Gennaro; M Rebonato; D Nitti; M Saugo Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 3.781