Literature DB >> 25618899

Relationship between surgical oncologic outcomes and publically reported hospital quality and satisfaction measures.

Jason D Wright1, Ana I Tergas2, Cande V Ananth2, William M Burke2, Ling Chen2, Alfred I Neugut2, Catherine A Richards2, Dawn L Hershman2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hospital-level measures of patient satisfaction and quality are now reported publically by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. There are limited metrics specific to cancer patients. We examined whether publically reported hospital satisfaction and quality data were associated with surgical oncologic outcomes.
METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was utilized to identify patients with solid tumors who underwent surgical resection in 2009 and 2010. The hospitals were linked to Hospital Compare, which collects data on patient satisfaction, perioperative quality, and 30-day mortality for medical conditions (pneumonia, myocardial infarction [MI], and congestive heart failure [CHF]). The risk-adjusted hospital-level rates of morbidity and mortality were calculated for each hospital and the means compared between the highest and lowest performing hospital quartiles and reported as absolute reduction in risk (ARR), the difference in risk of the outcome between the two groups. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: A total of 63197 patients treated at 448 hospitals were identified. For patients at high vs low performing hospitals based on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores, the ARR in perioperative morbidity was 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 5.7%, P = .02). Similarly, the ARR for mortality based on the same measure was -0.4% (95% CI = -1.5% to 0.6%, P = .40). High performance on perioperative quality measures resulted in an ARR of 0% to 2.2% for perioperative morbidity (P > .05 for all). Similarly, there was no statistically significant association between hospital-level mortality rates for MI (ARR = 0.7%, 95% CI = -1.0% to 2.5%), heart failure (ARR = 1.0%, 95% CI = -0.6% to 2.7%), or pneumonia (ARR = 1.6%, 95% CI = -0.3% to 3.5%) and complications for oncologic surgery patients.
CONCLUSION: Currently available measures of patient satisfaction and quality are poor predictors of outcomes for cancer patients undergoing surgery. Specific metrics for long-term oncologic outcomes and quality are needed.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25618899      PMCID: PMC4565527          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju409

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  38 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

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

2.  Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery.

Authors:  Amir A Ghaferi; John D Birkmeyer; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Does hospital performance on process measures directly measure high quality care or is it a marker of unmeasured care?

Authors:  Rachel M Werner; Eric T Bradlow; David A Asch
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Relationship between cancer center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures.

Authors:  Ryan P Merkow; Jeanette W Chung; Jennifer L Paruch; David J Bentrem; Karl Y Bilimoria
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer.

Authors:  P B Bach; L D Cramer; D Schrag; R J Downey; S E Gelfand; C B Begg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-07-19       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative.

Authors:  J D Birkmeyer; E V Finlayson; C M Birkmeyer
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  Quality of breast cancer care: perception versus practice.

Authors:  Nina A Bickell; Jennifer Neuman; Kezhen Fei; Rebeca Franco; Kathie-Ann Joseph
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Failure to rescue as a source of variation in hospital mortality for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Zainab Siddiq; Rebecca Arend; Alfred I Neugut; William M Burke; Sharyn N Lewin; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Association between participation in a multipayer medical home intervention and changes in quality, utilization, and costs of care.

Authors:  Mark W Friedberg; Eric C Schneider; Meredith B Rosenthal; Kevin G Volpp; Rachel M Werner
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Deviations from guideline-based therapy for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients and their effect on outcomes.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Alfred I Neugut; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; Elizabeth T Wilde; Yu-Shiang Lu; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  5 in total

1.  Commercial quality "awards" are not a strong indicator of quality surgical care.

Authors:  Adrienne N Cobb; Taylor R Erickson; Anai N Kothari; Emanuel Eguia; Sarah A Brownlee; Weiwei Yao; Hyunyou Choi; Victoria Greenberg; Joy Mboya; Michael Voss; Daniela Stan Raicu; Raffaella Settimi-Woods; Paul C Kuo
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 2.  Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement: A Structured Review.

Authors:  Davide Gori; Rajendra Dulal; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Maria P Fantini; Kathryn M McDonald; Tina Hernandez-Boussard
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2018-09-18

3.  Evaluation of the performance of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy.

Authors:  Colleen Rivard; Rebi Nahum; Elizabeth Slagle; Megan Duininck; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Deanna Teoh
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Combining Surgical Outcomes and Patient Experiences to Evaluate Hospital Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery Quality.

Authors:  Jason B Liu; Andrea L Pusic; Bruce L Hall; Robert E Glasgow; Clifford Y Ko; Larissa K Temple
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Assuring quality health care outcomes: lessons learned from car dealers?

Authors:  Joel E Dimsdale
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2017-01-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.