Dataset Information

The volume-mortality relation for radical cystectomy in England: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the relation between volume and mortality after adjustment for case mix for radical cystectomy in the English healthcare setting using improved statistical methodology, taking into account the institutional and surgeon volume effects and institutional structural and process of care factors.

Design

Retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics using multilevel modelling.

Setting

English hospitals carrying out radical cystectomy in the seven financial years 2000/1 to 2006/7.

Participants

Patients with a primary diagnosis of cancer undergoing an inpatient elective cystectomy.

Main outcome measure

Mortality within 30 days of cystectomy.

Results

Compared with low volume institutions, medium volume ones had a significantly higher odds of in-hospital and total mortality: odds ratio 1.72 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.98, P=0.05) and 1.82 (1.08 to 3.06, P=0.02). This was only seen in the final model, which included adjustment for structural and processes of care factors. The surgeon volume-mortality relation showed weak evidence of reduced odds of in-hospital mortality (by 35%) for the high volume surgeons, although this did not reach statistical significance at the 5% level.

Conclusions

The relation between case volume and mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer became evident only after adjustment for structural and process of care factors, including staffing levels of nurses and junior doctors, in addition to case mix. At least for this relatively uncommon procedure, adjusting for these confounders when examining the volume-outcome relation is critical before considering centralisation of care to a few specialist institutions. Outcomes other than mortality, such as functional morbidity and disease recurrence may ultimately influence towards centralising care.

SUBMITTER: Mayer EK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2842924 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIt is typical in epidemiological research of osteoarthritis (OA) to collect data for the hand, hip, and knee. However, little population-based data exist for this disease in the foot. Thus, we addressed patterns of OA for the foot compared with the hand, hip, and knee spanning 2000/2001 to 2017/2018 in England.MethodsSecondary-care data from 3 143 928 patients with OA of the foot, hand, hip, and knee were derived from the National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Distribution, population prevalence, and incidence of joint-specific OA were stratified by age and sex.ResultsOA incidence increased significantly at the foot [3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0, 4.6)], hand [10.9% (10.1, 11.7)], hip [3.8% (2.9, 4.7)], and knee [2.9% (2.2, 3.6)] per year from 2000/2001 to 2017/2018. A higher proportion of women were diagnosed with OA, whereas greater incidence in men was estimated for the hand and hip. Foot OA presented comparable diagnosis numbers to the hand. More recently during 2012/2013 to 2017/2018, a significant rise in hip OA was estimated among younger adults, whereas knee OA decreased across all age groups. Incidence of OA in the foot and hand were particularly significant among the 75 or older age group, though bimodal age distributions were observed for both sites.ConclusionThe significant increase in secondary care records for OA in England underscores the importance of exploring possible causative factors and identifying groups most at risk. Further detailed data may be particularly important for the hip, which represents significant incidence among younger adults. Greater incidence of OA in the foot compared with the knee emphasizes the need for well-conducted epidemiological research in this area. Monitoring the performance of surgical outcomes at the population-level for this frequently affected yet understudied site could have substantial potential to reduce the socioeconomic burden it represents to the NHS.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare 10 year mortality rates among patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and total hip replacement in England.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingEnglish hospital episode statistics database linked to mortality records from the Office for National Statistics.PopulationAll adults who underwent primary elective hip replacement for osteoarthritis from April 1999 to March 2012. The exposure of interest was prosthesis type: cemented total hip replacement, uncemented total hip replacement, and metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Confounding variables included age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, rurality, area deprivation, surgical volume, and year of operation.Main outcome measuresAll cause mortality. Propensity score matching was used to minimise confounding by indication. Kaplan-Meier plots estimated the probability of survival up to 10 years after surgery. Multilevel Cox regression modelling, stratified on matched sets, described the association between prosthesis type and time to death, accounting for variation across hospital trusts.Results7437 patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing were matched to 22,311 undergoing cemented total hip replacement; 8101 patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing were matched to 24,303 undergoing uncemented total hip replacement. 10 year rates of cumulative mortality were 271 (3.6%) for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus 1363 (6.1%) for cemented total hip replacement, and 239 (3.0%) for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus 999 (4.1%) for uncemented total hip replacement. Patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing had an increased survival probability (hazard ratio 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.59) for cemented hip replacement; 0.55 (0.47 to 0.65) for uncemented hip replacement). There was no evidence for an interaction with age or sex.ConclusionsPatients with hip osteoarthritis undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing have reduced mortality in the long term compared with those undergoing cemented or uncemented total hip replacement. This difference persisted after extensive adjustment for confounding factors available in our data. The study results can be applied to matched populations, which exclude patients who are very old and have had complex total hip replacements. Although residual confounding is possible, the observed effect size is large. These findings require validation in external cohorts and randomised clinical trials.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe national reoperation rates after elective and emergency colorectal resection and to assess the feasibility of using reoperation as a quality indicator derived from routinely collected data in England.DesignRetrospective observational study of Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data.SettingHES dataset, an administrative dataset covering the entire English National Health Service.ParticipantsAll patients undergoing a primary colorectal resection in England between 2000 and 2008.Main outcome measuresReoperation after colorectal resection, defined as any reoperation for an intra-abdominal procedure or wound complication within 28 days of surgery on the index or subsequent admission to hospital.ResultsThe national reoperation rate was 6.5% (15,986/246,469). A large degree of variation was identified among institutions and surgeons. Even among institutions and surgical teams with high caseloads, threefold and fivefold differences in reoperation rates were observed between the highest and lowest performing trusts and surgeons. Of the NHS trusts studied, 14.1% (22/156) had adjusted reoperation rates above the upper 99.8% control limit. Factors independently associated with higher risk of reoperation were diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.33 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.42), P<0.001), presence of multiple comorbidity (odds ratio 1.34 (1.29 to 1.39), P<0.001), social deprivation (1.14 (1.08 to 1.20) for most deprived, P<0.001), male sex (1.33 (1.29 to 1.38), P<0.001), rectal resection (1.63 (1.56 to 1.71), P<0.001), laparoscopic surgery (1.11 (1.03 to 1.20), P = 0.006), and emergency admission (1.21 (1.17 to 1.26), P<0.001).ConclusionsThere is large variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery between hospitals and surgeons in England. If data accuracy can be assured, reoperation may allow performance to be checked against national standards from current routinely collected data, alongside other indicators such as mortality.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the burden of hospital-treated Aspergillus and Candida infections in England.DesignA retrospective study using Hospital Episodes Statistics data to estimate the burden of serious and invasive fungal infections (SIFIs) in all patients admitted in England during March 2018-February 2020 (pre-COVID-19) and during March 2020-October 2021 (the COVID-19 period).SettingHospitals in England.PopulationAll patients with codes corresponding to serious and invasive aspergillosis and candidiasis in any diagnosis position during their admission pre-COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 period.Outcome measuresAge, spells, patient counts, mean length of stay, admission to critical care unit (CCU), length of stay in CCU, 30-day readmissions, failed discharges (readmission within 7 days) and comorbidities.ResultsDuring the COVID-19 period, hospitalisation spells with an invasive candidiasis code fell by 3.2% and spells with an aspergillosis code by 24.8%. Mean length of stay was higher for patients with aspergillosis with or without COVID-19 and candidiasis with or without COVID-19 during the pandemic than before the pandemic. During the pandemic, mean length of stay was higher for patients with aspergillosis with COVID-19 than those with aspergillosis alone but slightly lower for patients with candidiasis with COVID-19 than for those with candidiasis alone. Of patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, 52.5% with aspergillosis and 60.0% with candidiasis were treated in CCU compared with 13.2% and 37.1%, respectively, without a COVID-19 diagnosis. The percentage of 30-day readmissions and failed discharges for patients with SIFI was higher for those with COVID-19 than for those without.ConclusionsThe burden of aspergillosis and candidiasis has been affected by COVID-19. Aspergillosis diagnoses fell among hospitalised patients during the pandemic, while candidiasis continued to fluctuate in patterns similar to pre-COVID-19. A higher burden for patients with SIFI was observed, whether or not they also had a diagnosis of COVID-19. Our findings highlight extra considerations and burden on management of serious SIFI as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.