Literature DB >> 28665483

Understanding the relationship between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare star rating, surgical case volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery.

Deborah R Kaye1, Edward C Norton2,3,4, Chad Ellimoottil1, Zaojun Ye1, James M Dupree1, Lindsey A Herrel1, David C Miller1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery.
METHODS: National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes.
RESULTS: This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P < .001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267.
© 2017 American Cancer Society. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer surgery; outcomes; patient decision making; publicly available hospital ratings; quality

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28665483      PMCID: PMC5650526          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30866

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  12 in total

1.  Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery.

Authors:  Jonathan F Finks; Nicholas H Osborne; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity.

Authors:  J Matthew Austin; Ashish K Jha; Patrick S Romano; Sara J Singer; Timothy J Vogus; Robert M Wachter; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  The New CMS Hospital Quality Star Ratings: The Stars Are Not Aligned.

Authors:  Karl Y Bilimoria; Cynthia Barnard
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Quoc-Dien Trinh; Anders Bjartell; Stephen J Freedland; Brent K Hollenbeck; Jim C Hu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Maxine Sun; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-04-19       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Clinical Effect of Surgical Volume.

Authors:  Andrea L Merrill; Ashish K Jha; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Screening inpatient quality using post-discharge events.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni; Y D Mackiernan; M J Cahalane; R S Phillips; R B Davis; K Miller
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Long-term survival following partial vs radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer.

Authors:  Hung-Jui Tan; Edward C Norton; Zaojun Ye; Khaled S Hafez; John L Gore; David C Miller
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Early impact of Medicare accountable care organizations on cancer surgery outcomes.

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

9.  Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Therese A Stukel; Andrea E Siewers; Philip P Goodney; David E Wennberg; F Lee Lucas
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-11-27       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Johannes Morche; Tim Mathes; Dawid Pieper
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-29
View more
  11 in total

1.  Complications and Survivorship Trends After Primary Debulking Surgery for Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Zhaomin Xu; Adan Z Becerra; Carla F Justiniano; Christopher T Aquina; Fergal J Fleming; Francis P Boscoe; Maria J Schymura; Abdulrahman K Sinno; Jessica Chaoul; Gary R Morrow; Lori Minasian; Sarah M Temkin
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 2.192

2.  Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores and gynecologic oncology surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Joseph A Dottino; Weiguo He; Charlotte C Sun; Hui Zhao; Shuangshuang Fu; Karen H Lu; Larissa A Meyer
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Navigating by Stars: Using CMS Star Ratings to Choose Hospitals for Complex Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Marianna V Papageorge; Benjamin J Resio; Andres F Monsalve; Maureen Canavan; Ranjan Pathak; Vincent J Mase; Andrew P Dhanasopon; Jessica R Hoag; Justin D Blasberg; Daniel J Boffa
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2020-07-07

4.  Open innovation facilitates department-wide engagement in quality improvement: experience from the Massachusetts General Hospital.

Authors:  Yanik J Bababekov; Sahael M Stapleton; Daniel A Hashimoto; Elan R Witkowski; Alex B Haynes; Allan M Goldstein; John T Mullen; Eric M Isselbacher; Keith D Lillemoe; David C Chang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 3.453

5.  Characterizing extremely negative reviews of total joint arthroplasty practices and surgeons on yelp.com.

Authors:  Jaymeson R Arthur; David Etzioni; Adam J Schwartz
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2019-04-10

6.  Clinical trends and effects on quality metrics for surgical gastroesophageal cancer care.

Authors:  Roderich E Schwarz
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-07-19

7.  The centralization of bladder cancer care and its implications for patient travel distance.

Authors:  Kelly R Pekala; Jonathan G Yabes; Jathin Bandari; Michelle Yu; Benjamin J Davies; Lindsay M Sabik; Jeremy M Kahn; Bruce L Jacobs
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2021-06-20       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 8.  The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives.

Authors:  Adam C Reese; Serge Ginzburg
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

9.  Comparing textbook outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for cancer at U. S. News & World Report ranked hospitals.

Authors:  Rittal Mehta; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Anghela Z Paredes; Kota Sahara; Amika Moro; Ayesha Farooq; Susan White; Aslam Ejaz; Allan Tsung; Mary Dillhoff; Jordan M Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 2.885

10.  Comparison of the Quality of Hospitals That Admit Medicare Advantage Patients vs Traditional Medicare Patients.

Authors:  David J Meyers; Amal N Trivedi; Vincent Mor; Momotazur Rahman
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.