BACKGROUND: A strong relationship between hospital caseload and adverse outcomes has been demonstrated for pancreatic resections. Participation in regional surgical collaboratives may mitigate this phenomenon. This study sought to investigate changes over time in adverse outcomes after pancreatectomy across hospitals with different caseloads in a statewide surgical collaborative. METHODS: The study investigated patients undergoing pancreatic resection from January 2008 to August 2013 at Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) hospitals (1007 patients in 19 academic and community hospitals). Risk-adjusted rates of major complications, mortality, and failure to rescue were compared between hospitals based on caseloads (low, medium, and high) in early (2008-2010) and later (2011-2013) periods. Finally, the degree to which different complications explained changes in hospital outcome variation was assessed. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of major complications and mortality decreased over time, driven largely by improvements at low-caseload hospitals. In 2008-2010, risk-adjusted major complication rates were higher for low-caseload than for high-caseload hospitals (27.8 vs. 17.8 %; p = 0.02). However, these differences were attenuated in 2011-2013 (22.2 vs. 20.0 %; p = 0.74). Similarly, adjusted mortality rates were higher in low-caseload hospitals in 2008-2010 (6.2 vs. 0.8 %; p = 0.02), but these differences were attenuated in 2011-2013 (3.3 vs. 1.1 %; p = 0.18). Variation in major complications decreased, largely due to decreased variation in "medical" complication rates, with less change in surgical-site complications. CONCLUSION: Participation in regional quality collaboratives by lower-volume hospitals can attenuate the volume-outcome relationship for pancreatic surgery. Continued work in collaboratives with an emphasis on technical and intraoperative aspects of care may improve overall quality of care.
BACKGROUND: A strong relationship between hospital caseload and adverse outcomes has been demonstrated for pancreatic resections. Participation in regional surgical collaboratives may mitigate this phenomenon. This study sought to investigate changes over time in adverse outcomes after pancreatectomy across hospitals with different caseloads in a statewide surgical collaborative. METHODS: The study investigated patients undergoing pancreatic resection from January 2008 to August 2013 at Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) hospitals (1007 patients in 19 academic and community hospitals). Risk-adjusted rates of major complications, mortality, and failure to rescue were compared between hospitals based on caseloads (low, medium, and high) in early (2008-2010) and later (2011-2013) periods. Finally, the degree to which different complications explained changes in hospital outcome variation was assessed. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of major complications and mortality decreased over time, driven largely by improvements at low-caseload hospitals. In 2008-2010, risk-adjusted major complication rates were higher for low-caseload than for high-caseload hospitals (27.8 vs. 17.8 %; p = 0.02). However, these differences were attenuated in 2011-2013 (22.2 vs. 20.0 %; p = 0.74). Similarly, adjusted mortality rates were higher in low-caseload hospitals in 2008-2010 (6.2 vs. 0.8 %; p = 0.02), but these differences were attenuated in 2011-2013 (3.3 vs. 1.1 %; p = 0.18). Variation in major complications decreased, largely due to decreased variation in "medical" complication rates, with less change in surgical-site complications. CONCLUSION: Participation in regional quality collaboratives by lower-volume hospitals can attenuate the volume-outcome relationship for pancreatic surgery. Continued work in collaboratives with an emphasis on technical and intraoperative aspects of care may improve overall quality of care.
Authors: Michael Fung-Kee-Fung; James Watters; Claire Crossley; Elena Goubanova; Arifa Abdulla; Hartley Stern; Thomas K Oliver Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: David A Share; Darrell A Campbell; Nancy Birkmeyer; Richard L Prager; Hitinder S Gurm; Mauro Moscucci; Marianne Udow-Phillips; John D Birkmeyer Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Mary Fischer; Kenichi Matsuo; Mithat Gonen; Florence Grant; Ronald P Dematteo; Michael I D'Angelica; Jennifer Mascarenhas; Murray F Brennan; Peter J Allen; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Darrell A Campbell; Michael J Englesbe; James J Kubus; Laurel R S Phillips; Charles J Shanley; Vic Velanovich; Larry R Lloyd; Max C Hutton; Wallace A Arneson; David A Share Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-10
Authors: Nancy J O Birkmeyer; Justin B Dimick; David Share; Abdelkader Hawasli; Wayne J English; Jeffrey Genaw; Jonathan F Finks; Arthur M Carlin; John D Birkmeyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Margaret E Smith; Emily E Wells; Christopher R Friese; Sarah L Krein; Amir A Ghaferi Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Lindsey A Herrel; Edward C Norton; Scott R Hawken; Zaojun Ye; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Zhi Ven Fong; Pei-Wen Lim; Ryan Hendrix; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Ryan D Nipp; James M Lindberg; Giles F Whalen; William Kastrinakis; Motaz Qadan; Cristina R Ferrone; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; David C Chang; Lara N Traeger Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 4.339