Literature DB >> 27329425

Quality Indicators for Head and Neck Oncologic Surgery: Academic versus Nonacademic Outcomes.

Sidharth V Puram1,2, Neil Bhattacharyya3,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: to determine national benchmarks for established quality indicators in head and neck cancer (HNCA) surgery, focusing on differences between academic and nonacademic institutions. STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of national database. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: HNCA surgery admissions from the 2009-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample were analyzed for preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes. Multivariate analyses were used to identify factors influencing quality indicators after HNCA surgery. Quality metrics-including length of stay (LOS), inpatient death, return to the operating room (OR), wound infection, and transfusion-were compared for academic versus nonacademic institutions.
RESULTS: A total of 38,379 HNCA surgery inpatient admissions (mean age, 56.5 years; 52.4% male) were analyzed (28,288 teaching vs 10,091 nonteaching). Nationally representative quality metrics for HNCA surgery were as follows: mean LOS, 4.26 ± 0.12 days; return to OR, 3.3% ± 0.2%; inpatient mortality, 0.7% ± 0.1%; wound infection rate, 0.9% ± 0.1%; wound complication rate, 4.3% ± 0.2%; and transfusion rate, 4.3% ± 0.3%. HNCA surgery patients at teaching hospitals had a greater proportion of males, radiation history, and high-acuity procedures and greater comorbidity scores (all P < .001). Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, sex, income, payer, prior radiation, comorbidity scores, and procedural acuity demonstrated that teaching hospitals had a slightly increased LOS (+0.30 days; P = .009) and odds ratio for wound infection (1.54; 95% CI: 1.22-1.94) versus nonteaching hospitals. There were no significant differences in return to OR (P = .271), inpatient mortality (P = .686), or transfusion rate (P = .960).
CONCLUSION: Despite caring for substantially more complex HNCA surgery patients with greater comorbidities, teaching hospitals demonstrate only a marginally increased LOS and wound complication rate versus nonteaching hospitals, while other established quality metrics are similar. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  academic; head and neck; otolaryngology; quality outcomes; teaching

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27329425     DOI: 10.1177/0194599816654689

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  4 in total

1.  Measuring Institutional Quality in Head and Neck Surgery Using Hospital-Level Data: Negative Margin Rates and Neck Dissection Yield.

Authors:  David W Schoppy; Kim F Rhoads; Yifei Ma; Michelle M Chen; Brian Nussenbaum; Ryan K Orosco; Eben L Rosenthal; Vasu Divi
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 6.223

2.  The role of age in treatment decisions for oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Thomas F Barrett; Angela L Mazul; Katelyn O Stepan; C Burton Wood; Randall C Paniello; Jose P Zevallos; Sean Massa; Ryan S Jackson; Nicole C Schmitt; Joseph Zenga; Stephen Y Kang; Patrik Pipkorn; Jason T Rich; Sidharth V Puram
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 5.972

3.  Predicting length of stay in head and neck patients who undergo free flap reconstruction.

Authors:  Michael M Lindeborg; Rosh K V Sethi; Sidharth V Puram; Anuraag Parikh; Bharat Yarlagadda; Mark Varvares; Kevin Emerick; Derrick Lin; Marlene L Durand; Daniel G Deschler
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-05-28

4.  Association of Type of Treatment Facility With Overall Survival After a Diagnosis of Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Ryan M Carey; Ramie Fathy; Ravi R Shah; Karthik Rajasekaran; Steven B Cannady; Jason G Newman; Said A Ibrahim; Jason A Brant
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.