Anai N Kothari1, Barbara A Blanco1, Sarah A Brownlee2, Ann E Evans1, Victor A Chang2, Gerard J Abood1, Raffaella Settimi3, Daniela S Raicu3, Paul C Kuo4. 1. Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL; One:MAP Section of Clinical Informatics and Analytics, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL. 2. One:MAP Section of Clinical Informatics and Analytics, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL. 3. School of Computing, DePaul University, Chicago, IL. 4. Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL; One:MAP Section of Clinical Informatics and Analytics, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL. Electronic address: paul.kuo@luhs.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the hospital resources required for low-volume, high-quality care at high-volume cancer resection centers. METHODS: Patients who underwent esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal resection for malignancy were identified using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database (Florida and California) between 2007 and 2011. Annual case volume by procedure was used to identify high- and low-volume centers. Hospital data were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Procedure risk-adjusted mortality was calculated for each hospital using multilevel, mixed-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 24,784 patients from 302 hospitals met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 hospitals were classified as having a high-volume, oncologic resection ecosystem by being a high-volume hospital for ≥2 studied procedures. A total of 11 of 31 studied hospital factors were strongly associated with hospitals that performed a high volume of cancer resections and were used to develop the High Volume Ecosystem for Oncologic Resections (HIVE-OR) score. At low-volume centers, increasing HIVE-OR score resulted in decreased mortality for rectal cancer resection (P = .038). HIVE-OR was not related to risk-adjusted mortality for esophagectomy (P = .421) or pancreatectomy (P = .413) at low-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Our study found that in some settings, low-volume, high-quality cancer surgical care can be explained by having a high-volume ecosystem.
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the hospital resources required for low-volume, high-quality care at high-volume cancer resection centers. METHODS:Patients who underwent esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal resection for malignancy were identified using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database (Florida and California) between 2007 and 2011. Annual case volume by procedure was used to identify high- and low-volume centers. Hospital data were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Procedure risk-adjusted mortality was calculated for each hospital using multilevel, mixed-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 24,784 patients from 302 hospitals met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 hospitals were classified as having a high-volume, oncologic resection ecosystem by being a high-volume hospital for ≥2 studied procedures. A total of 11 of 31 studied hospital factors were strongly associated with hospitals that performed a high volume of cancer resections and were used to develop the High Volume Ecosystem for Oncologic Resections (HIVE-OR) score. At low-volume centers, increasing HIVE-OR score resulted in decreased mortality for rectal cancer resection (P = .038). HIVE-OR was not related to risk-adjusted mortality for esophagectomy (P = .421) or pancreatectomy (P = .413) at low-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Our study found that in some settings, low-volume, high-quality cancer surgical care can be explained by having a high-volume ecosystem.
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
Authors: Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Laura D Cramer; Jose G Guillem; Peter B Bach; Colin B Begg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Luke M Funk; Atul A Gawande; Marcus E Semel; Stuart R Lipsitz; William R Berry; Michael J Zinner; Ashish K Jha Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M Simunovic; T To; N Baxter; A Balshem; E Ross; Z Cohen; R McLeod; P Engstrom; E Sigurdson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Sandra L Wong; ShaʼShonda L Revels; Huiying Yin; Andrew K Stewart; Andrea McVeigh; Mousumi Banerjee; John D Birkmeyer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jeffrey N Katz; Jane Barrett; Nizar N Mahomed; John A Baron; R John Wright; Elena Losina Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Adrienne N Cobb; Witawat Daungjaiboon; Sarah A Brownlee; Anthony J Baldea; Arthur P Sanford; Michael M Mosier; Paul C Kuo Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ann Falor Callahan; Philip H G Ituarte; Leanne Goldstein; Susanne G Warner; Yanghee Woo; Gagandeep Singh; Yuman Fong; Laleh G Melstrom Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 3.352