Deborah R Kaye1, Edward C Norton2,3,4, Chad Ellimoottil1, Zaojun Ye1, James M Dupree1, Lindsey A Herrel1, David C Miller1. 1. Dow Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
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.
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.
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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