Dataset Information

Effect of Minimum-Volume Standards on Patient Outcomes and Surgical Practice Patterns for Hysterectomy.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To model the effect of implementing minimum-volume standards for women who underwent hysterectomy on patient outcomes and surgeon practice patterns. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System to capture data for all women who underwent hysterectomy from 2010 to 2014. We estimated the number of hysterectomies performed by each patient's physician during the prior year. Multivariable models were used to estimate the ratio of observed to expected complications based on each surgeon's volume during the prior year. The mean observed/expected ratio of surgeons was then plotted by volume. The number of patients and surgeons who would be eliminated and the reduction in complications if minimum-volume standards (lowest fifth and 10th percentiles) were implemented were analyzed. Separate analyses were performed for each route of hysterectomy. RESULTS:We identified a total of 127,202 patients. For abdominal hysterectomy, increasing surgeon volume was associated with a decreasing rate of complications (P<.001). Overall, 17.5% of surgeons (n=1,260) had a prior year volume of one abdominal hysterectomy. The mean observed/expected ratio of surgeons with a prior year abdominal hysterectomy volume of one was 1.47 (SD 2.71). Within this group of surgeons, 31.4% had an observed/expected ratio of 1 or greater, indicating a higher than expected complication rate, and 68.7% of the surgeons had a observed/expected ratio of less than 1, suggesting a lower complication rate than expected based on case mix. Selection of a prior year volume standard of one would restrict 12.5% of surgeons performing robotic-assisted, 16.8% of those performing laparoscopic, and 27.6% of surgeons performing vaginal hysterectomy. CONCLUSION:Implementing minimum-volume standards for hysterectomy, for even the lowest volume physicians, would restrict a significant number of gynecologic surgeons, including many with outcomes that are better than predicted.

SUBMITTER: Ruiz MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6328334 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Minimum-Volume Standards on Patient Outcomes and Surgical Practice Patterns for Hysterectomy.

Ruiz Maria P MP Chen Ling L Hou June Y JY Tergas Ana I AI St Clair Caryn M CM Ananth Cande V CV Neugut Alfred I AI Hershman Dawn L DL Wright Jason D JD

Obstetrics and gynecology 20181101 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To model the effect of implementing minimum-volume standards for women who underwent hysterectomy on patient outcomes and surgeon practice patterns.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System to capture data for all women who underwent hysterectomy from 2010 to 2014. We estimated the number of hysterectomies performed by each patient's physician during the prior year. Multivariable models were u ...[more]

PMID: 30303921

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe volume-outcome relationship, i.e., higher hospital volume results in better health outcomes, has been established for different surgical procedures as well as for certain nonsurgical medical interventions. Accordingly, many countries such as Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Switzerland have established minimum volume standards. To date, there is a lack of systematically summarized evidence regarding the effects of such regulations.MethodsTo be included in the review, studies must measure any effects connected to minimum volume standards. Outcomes of interest include the following: (1) patient-related outcomes, (2) process-related outcomes, and (3) health system-related outcomes. We will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials ([C]RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs). We will apply no restrictions regarding language, publication date, and publication status. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Embase), CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library), CINHAL (via EBSCO), EconLit (via EBSCO), PDQ evidence for informed health policymaking, health systems evidence, OpenGrey, and also trial registries for relevant studies. We will further search manually for additional studies by cross-checking the reference lists of all included primary studies as well as cross-checking the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the risk of bias, we will use the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 risk-of-bias tools for the corresponding study designs. For data synthesis and statistical analyses, we will follow the guidance published by the EPOC Cochrane group (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), EPOC Resources for review authors, 2019).DiscussionThis systematic review focuses on minimum volume standards and the outcomes used to measure their effects. It is designed to provide thorough and encompassing evidence-based information on this topic. Thus, it will inform decision-makers and policymakers with respect to the effects of minimum volume standards and inform further studies in regard to research gaps.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022318883.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize long-term national trends in surgical approach for hysterectomy after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning against power morcellation for laparoscopic specimen removal.MethodsThis was a descriptive study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2012 to 2016. We identified hysterectomies using Current Procedural Terminology codes. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to evaluate abdominal and supracervical hysterectomy trends surrounding The Wall Street Journal article first reporting morcellation safety concerns and the FDA safety communication. We compared categorical and continuous variables using χ, t, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.ResultsWe identified 179,950 hysterectomies; laparoscopy was the most common mode of hysterectomy in every quarter. Before The Wall Street Journal article, there was no significant change in proportion of abdominal hysterectomies (0.3% decrease/quarter, P=.14). After The Wall Street Journal article, use of abdominal hysterectomy increased 1.1% per quarter for two quarters through the FDA warning (P<.001), plateaued for three quarters until March 2015 (P=.65), then decreased by 0.8% per quarter through 2016 (P<.001). Supracervical hysterectomy volume continuously decreased after the FDA warning (1.0% decrease per quarter, P<.001) and after three quarters (0.7% decrease per quarter, P=.01), then plateaued from April 2015 through 2016 (0.05% decrease per quarter, P=.40). Mode of supracervical hysterectomy was unchanged from 2012 to 2013 (P=.43), followed by two quarters of significant increase in proportion of supracervical abdominal hysterectomies (11.7%/quarter, P<.001). This change in mode of supracervical hysterectomy then plateaued through 2016 (P=.06).ConclusionDespite early studies suggesting that minimally invasive hysterectomy decreased in response to safety concerns regarding power morcellation, we found that this effect reversed 1 year after the FDA safety communication. However, there was a sustained decline in supracervical hysterectomy, and the remaining supracervical hysterectomies were more likely to be performed using laparotomy.

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the association between surgical volume and survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy.MethodsThis is a nationwide multicenter retrospective study examining consecutive women with clinical stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer who underwent radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy from 2004 to 2008 (N=5,964). The surgical volume per site over the 5-year period was defined as low-volume (fewer than 32 surgeries, 46 [39.7%] institutions, n=649 [10.9%]), mid-volume (32-104 surgeries, 60 [51.7%] institutions, n=3,662 [61.4%]), and high-volume (105 surgeries or more, 10 [8.6%] institutions, n=1,653 [27.7%]). Surgical volume-specific survival was examined with multivariable analysis and propensity score matching.ResultsThe median number of surgeries per site was 44 (interquartile range, 17-65). The 5-year disease-free survival rates among stage IB1-IIB disease were 77.2%, 79.9%, and 84.5% for low-, mid-, and high-volume groups, respectively. On multivariable analysis, women in high-volume centers had a decreased risk of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.82, P<.001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.90, P=.003) compared with those in mid-volume centers. Specifically, women in high-volume centers had a decreased risk of local recurrence (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78, P<.001) but not distant recurrence (adjusted HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.06, P=.142) compared with those in mid-volume centers. Among 1,700 women with clinical stage IB1 disease treated with surgery alone, surgery at high-volume centers was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence (adjusted HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.79, P=.006) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.76, P=.013) compared with surgery at mid-volume centers on multivariable analysis. After propensity score matching, surgery at high-volume centers remained an independent prognostic factor for decreased recurrence (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.84, P<.001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.95, P=.016) compared with surgery at mid- and low-volume centers on multivariable analysis.ConclusionHospital volume for radical hysterectomy may be a prognostic factor for early-stage cervical cancer. Surgery at high-volume centers is associated with decreased local recurrence risk and improved survival.

Project description:ImportanceVarious clinical societies and patient advocacy organizations continue to encourage minimum volume standards at hospitals that perform certain high-risk operations. Although many clinicians and quality and safety experts believe this can improve outcomes, the extent to which hospitals have responded to these discretionary standards remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between short-term clinical outcomes and hospitals' adherence to the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery.Design, setting, and participantsLongitudinal cohort study using 100% of the Medicare claims for 516 392 patients undergoing pancreatic, esophageal, rectal, or lung resection for cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. Data were accessed between December 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019.ExposuresHigh-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards.Main outcomes and measuresPatients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates.ResultsOverall, a total of 516 392 procedures (47 318 pancreatic resections, 29 812 esophageal resections, 116 383 rectal resections, and 322 879 lung resections) were included in the study, and patient mean (SD) age was 73.1 (7.5) years. Outcomes improved over time in both hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Mortality after pancreatic resection decreased from 5.5% in 2005 to 4.8% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after esophageal resection decreased from in 6.7% 2005 to 5.0% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after rectal resection decreased from 3.6% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after lung resection decreased from 4.2% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Throughout the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals meeting and not meeting the volume standards for esophageal, lung, and rectal cancer resections. Mortality rates after pancreatic resection were consistently lower at hospitals meeting the volume standard, although mortality at all hospitals decreased over the study period. For example, in 2016, risk-adjusted mortality rates for hospitals meeting the volume standard were 3.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.3%) compared with 5.7% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%) for hospitals that did not. Although an increasing majority of patients underwent surgery in hospitals meeting the Leapfrog volume standards over time, the overall proportion of hospitals meeting the standards in 2016 ranged from 5.6% for esophageal resection to 23.3% for pancreatic resection.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough volume remains an important factor for patient safety, the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards did not differentiate hospitals based on mortality for 3 of the 4 high-risk cancer operations assessed, and few hospitals were able to meet these standards. These findings highlight important tradeoffs between setting effective volume thresholds and practical expectations for hospital adherence and patient access to centers that meet those standards.

Dataset Information

Effect of Minimum-Volume Standards on Patient Outcomes and Surgical Practice Patterns for Hysterectomy.

Publications

Effect of Minimum-Volume Standards on Patient Outcomes and Surgical Practice Patterns for Hysterectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets