Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate the relationship between hospital volume and outcome by focusing on alternative measures of volume that capture specialization and overall throughput of hospitals.Data sources/study setting
Hospital administrative data from the state of Victoria, Australia; data contain 1,798,474 admitted episodes reported by 135 public and private acute-care hospitals.Study design
This study contrasts the volume-outcome relationship using regression models with different measures of volume; two-step and single-step risk-adjustment methods are used.Data collection/extraction methods
The sample is restricted to ischemic heart disease (IHD) patients (ICD-10 codes: I20-I25) admitted during 2001/02 to 2004/05.Principal findings
Overall hospital throughput and degree of specialization display more substantive implications for the volume-outcome relationship than conventional caseload volume measure. Two-step estimation when corrected for heteroscedasticity produces comparable results to single-step methods.Conclusions
Different measures of volume could lead to vastly different conclusions about the volume-outcome relationship. Hospital specialization and throughput should both be included as measures of volume to capture the notion of size, focus, and possible congestion effects.
SUBMITTER: Lee KC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4693841 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Lee Kris C L KC Sethuraman Kannan K Yong Jongsay J
Health services research 20150317 6
<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the relationship between hospital volume and outcome by focusing on alternative measures of volume that capture specialization and overall throughput of hospitals.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Hospital administrative data from the state of Victoria, Australia; data contain 1,798,474 admitted episodes reported by 135 public and private acute-care hospitals.<h4>Study design</h4>This study contrasts the volume-outcome relationship using regression models with diff ...[more]