Literature DB >> 7432019

The relation between surgical volume and mortality: an exploration of causal factors and alternative models.

H S Luft.   

Abstract

A previous study of 12 procedures of varying complexity in 1,498 hospitals identified a strong negative curvilinear relationship between the volume of a particular operation and postoperative mortality. The current study uses multiple regression techniques to explore the role of other potentially important variable and alternative interpretations of the volume-mortality relationship. The dependent variable is the difference between the hospital's actual death rate and its expected death rate based upon the riskiness of its case mix. The inclusion of other variables, such as size of hospital, teaching status, geographic location and cost, improves the fit of the regression, but does not diminish the importance of volume. There is no evidence that volume accumulated over 2 years is a better measure than volume in 1 year. Experience and volume of related operations are important in some cases but not others. Several likely alternative explanations for the observed relationship were not supported: larger hospitals and those with more house staff had outcomes that were worse than expected. Large geographic differences in mortality rates remain unexplained. A simultaneous-equation model is used to test whether higher volume leads to better outcomes or better outcomes lead to higher volumes. Both causal paths are supported, but their relative importance varies with the procedure in ways that are consistent with anticipated referral patterns.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 7432019     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198009000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  63 in total

1.  Hepatic resection at a community hospital.

Authors:  M E Ston; S U Rehman; G Conaway; A Sardi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Outcomes and the management of health care. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-12-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries.

Authors:  Robert Welte; Talitha Feenstra; Hans Jager; Reiner Leidl
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Mortality league tables: do they inform or mislead?

Authors:  M McKee; D Hunter
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1995-03

5.  Changing systems of external monitoring of quality of health care in the United States.

Authors:  N J Wareham
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1994-06

Review 6.  Rural hospitals: a literature synthesis and health services research agenda.

Authors:  I S Moscovice
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 7.  The relationship between hospital or operator volume and outcomes of coronary patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

Authors:  A Dibra; A Kastrati; H Schühlen; A Schömig
Journal:  Z Kardiol       Date:  2005-04

Review 8.  How are volume-outcome associations related to models of health care funding and delivery? A comparison of the United States and Canada.

Authors:  David R Urbach; Ruth Croxford; Nancy L MacCallum; Thérèse A Stukel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Long-term trends in hip arthroplasty use and volume.

Authors:  Peter Cram; Xin Lu; John J Callaghan; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Xueya Cai; Yue Li
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremities: What Is the Value of Treating at High-volume Centers?

Authors:  Alexander L Lazarides; David L Kerr; Daniel P Nussbaum; R Timothy Kreulen; Jason A Somarelli; Dan G Blazer; Brian E Brigman; William C Eward
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.