Literature DB >> 31135724

Potential Consequences of Minimum-Volume Standards for Hospitals Treating Women With Ovarian Cancer.

Jason D Wright1, Yongmei Huang, Alexander Melamed, Ana I Tergas, Caryn M St Clair, June Y Hou, Fady Khoury-Collado, Cande V Ananth, Alfred I Neugut, Dawn L Hershman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effects of implementing minimum hospital volume standards for ovarian cancer on survival and access to care.
METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify hospitals treating women with ovarian cancer from 2005 to 2015. We estimated the number of patients treated by each hospital during the prior year. Multivariable models were used to estimate the ratio of observed/expected 60-day, and 1-, 2- and 5-year mortalities. The mean predicted observed/expected ratio of hospitals was plotted based on prior year volume. The number of hospitals that would be restricted if minimum-volume standards were implemented was modeled.
RESULTS: A total of 136,196 patients treated at 1,321 hospitals were identified. Increasing hospital volume was associated with decreased 60-day (P=.004), 1-year (P<.001), 2-year (P<.001) and 5-year (P=.008) mortality. In 2015, using a minimum-volume cutpoint of one case in the prior year would eliminate 144 (13.6%) hospitals (treated 2.6% of all patients); a cutpoint of three would eliminate 364 (34.5%) hospitals (treated 7.7% of the patients). The mean observed/expected ratios for hospitals with a prior year volume of 1 was 1.14 for 60-day mortality, 1.06 for 1-year mortality, 1.12 for 2-year mortality, and 1.08 for 5-year mortality. Among hospitals with a prior year volume of one, 49.2% had an observed/expected ratio for 2-year mortality of at least 1 (indicating worse than expected performance), and 50.8% had an observed/expected ratio of less than 1 (indicating better than expected performance). The mean observed/expected ratios for hospitals with a prior year volume of two or less were 1.11 for 60-day mortality, 1.09 for 1-year mortality, 1.08 for 2-year mortality, and 1.07 for 5-year mortality. Implementing a minimum-volume standard of one case in the prior year would result in one fewer death for every 198 patients at 60 days, for every 613 patients at 1 year, and for every 62 patients at 5 years.
CONCLUSION: Implementation of minimum hospital volume standards could restrict care at a significant number of hospitals, including many centers with better-than-predicted outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31135724      PMCID: PMC6548333          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003288

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  27 in total

1.  Hospital Readmission as a Poor Measure of Quality in Ovarian Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Shitanshu Uppal; Ryan J Spencer; Laurel W Rice; Marcela G Del Carmen; R Kevin Reynolds; Jennifer J Griggs
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  The National Cancer Database report on advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer: impact of hospital surgical case volume on overall survival and surgical treatment paradigm.

Authors:  Robert E Bristow; Bryan E Palis; Dennis S Chi; William A Cliby
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Geographic access to gynecologic cancer care in the United States.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Alexandra M Vinograd; Robert L Giuntoli
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Ovarian cancer in the United States: contemporary patterns of care associated with improved survival.

Authors:  William A Cliby; Matthew A Powell; Noor Al-Hammadi; Ling Chen; J Philip Miller; Phillip Y Roland; David G Mutch; Robert E Bristow
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Barriers to Regionalized Surgical Care: Public Perspective Survey and Geospatial Analysis.

Authors:  Matthew M Symer; Jonathan S Abelson; Heather L Yeo
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization.

Authors:  S R Finlayson; J D Birkmeyer; A N Tosteson; R F Nease
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  High-volume ovarian cancer care: survival impact and disparities in access for advanced-stage disease.

Authors:  Robert E Bristow; Jenny Chang; Argyrios Ziogas; Leslie M Randall; Hoda Anton-Culver
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Shop for quality or volume? Volume, quality, and outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Andrew D Auerbach; Joan F Hilton; Judith Maselli; Penelope S Pekow; Michael B Rothberg; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Specialized care and survival of ovarian cancer patients in The Netherlands: nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Flora Vernooij; A Peter M Heintz; Petronella O Witteveen; Margriet van der Heiden-van der Loo; Jan-Willem Coebergh; Yolanda van der Graaf
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-03-11       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Association between hospital surgical volume and perioperative outcomes of fertility-sparing trachelectomy for cervical cancer: A national study in the United States.

Authors:  Koji Matsuo; Shinya Matsuzaki; Rachel S Mandelbaum; Kazuhide Matsushima; Maximilian Klar; Brendan H Grubbs; Lynda D Roman; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 5.482

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.