Dataset Information

Differential Safety Between Top-Ranked Cancer Hospitals and Their Affiliates for Complex Cancer Surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Leading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their brands with other hospitals through growing networks of affiliations. However, the brand of top-ranked cancer hospitals may evoke distinct reputations for safety and quality that do not extend to all hospitals within these networks.

Objective

To assess perioperative mortality of Medicare beneficiaries after complex cancer surgery across hospitals participating in networks with top-ranked cancer hospitals.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional study was performed of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for top-ranked cancer hospitals (as assessed by U.S. News and World Report) and affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Participants were 29 228 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure]) between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2016.

Exposures

Undergoing complex cancer surgery at a top-ranked cancer hospital vs an affiliated hospital.

Main outcomes and measures

Risk-adjusted 90-day mortality estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and comparison of the relative safety of hospitals within each cancer network estimated using standardized mortality ratios.

Results

A total of 17 300 patients (59.2%; 8612 women and 8688 men; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 59 top-ranked hospitals and 11 928 patients (40.8%; 6287 women and 5641 men; mean [SD] age, 76.2 [6.9] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 343 affiliated hospitals. Overall, surgery performed at affiliated hospitals was associated with higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59; P < .001), with odds ratios that ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001) for colectomy to 2.04 (95% CI, 1.41-2.95; P < .001) for gastrectomy. When the relative safety of each top-ranked cancer hospital was compared with its collective affiliates, the top-ranked hospital was safer than the affiliates in 41 of 49 studied networks (83.7%; 95% CI, 73.1%-93.3%).

Conclusions and relevance

The likelihood of surviving complex cancer surgery appears to be greater at top-ranked cancer hospitals compared with the affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Further investigation of performance across trusted cancer networks could enhance informed decision making for complex cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Hoag JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6481444 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Hospital networks formed around top-ranked cancer hospitals represent an opportunity to optimize complex cancer care in the community. Objective:To compare the short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment at top-ranked cancer hospitals and the affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study was conducted using data from the unabridged version of the National Cancer Database. Included patients were individuals 18 years or older who underwent surgical treatment for esophageal, gastric, lung, pancreatic, colorectal, or bladder cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Patient outcomes after complex surgical procedures for cancer at top-ranked cancer hospitals (as ranked in top 50 by US News and World Report) were compared with outcomes at affiliates of top-ranked cancer hospitals (affiliation listed in American Hospitals Association survey and confirmed by search of internet presence). Data were analyzed from July through December 2019. Exposures:Undergoing complex cancer treatment at a top-ranked cancer hospital or an affiliated hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures:The association of affiliate status with short-term survival (ie, 90-day mortality) was compared using logistic regression, and the association of affiliate status with long-term survival was compared using time-to-event models, adjusting for patient demographic, payer, clinical, and treatment factors. Results:Among 119?834 patients who underwent surgical treatment for cancer, 79?981 patients (66.7%) were treated at top-ranked cancer hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [58-74] years; 40?910 [54.9%] men) and 39?853 patients (33.3%) were treated at affiliate hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [60-77] years; 19?004 [50.0%] men). In a pooled analysis of all cancer types, adjusted perioperative mortality within 90 days of surgical treatment was higher at affiliate hospitals compared with top-ranked hospitals (odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.49-1.89]; P?<?.001). Adjusted long-term survival following cancer treatment at affiliate hospitals was only 77% that of top-ranked hospitals (time ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.83]; P?<?.001). The survival advantage was not fully explained by differences in annual surgical volume, with both long- and short-term survival remaining superior at top-ranked hospitals even after models were adjusted for volume. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment were superior at top-ranked hospitals compared with affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Further study of cancer care within top-ranked cancer networks could reveal collaborative opportunities to improve survival across a broad contingent of the US population.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a longstanding interest in the field of management science to study high performance organizations. Applied to medicine, research on hospital performance indicates that some hospitals are high performing, while others are not. The objective of this study was to identify a cluster of high-performing emergency general surgery (EGS) hospitals and assess whether high performance at one EGS operation was associated with high performance on all EGS operations. METHODS:Adult patients who underwent one of eight EGS operations were identified in the California State Inpatient Database (2010-2011), which we linked to the American Hospital Association database. Beta regression was used to estimate a hospital's risk-adjusted mortality, accounting for patient- and hospital-level factors. Centroid cluster analysis grouped hospitals by patterns of mortality rates across the eight EGS operations using z scores. Multinomial logistic regression compared hospital characteristics by cluster. RESULTS:A total of 220 acute care hospitals were included. Three distinct clusters of hospitals were defined based on assessment of mortality for each operation type: high-performing hospitals (n = 66), average performing (n = 99), and low performing (n = 55). The mortality by individual operation type at the high-performing cluster was consistently at least 1.5 standard deviations better than the low-performing cluster (p < 0.001). Within-cluster variation was minimal at high-performing hospitals compared with wide variation at low-performing hospitals. A hospital's high performance in one EGS operation type predicted high performance on all EGS operation types. CONCLUSION:High-performing EGS hospitals attain excellence across all types of EGS operations, with minimal variability in mortality. Poor-performing hospitals are persistently below average, even for low-risk operations. These findings suggest that top-performing EGS hospitals are highly reliable, with systems of care in place to achieve consistently superior results. Further investigation and collaboration are needed to identify the factors associated with high performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic, level III.

Project description:ImportanceDirecting patients to safer hospitals for complex cancer surgery (regionalization) may prevent thousands of mortalities in the United States.ObjectiveTo understand the potential for individuals to move to safer hospitals: what would inspire them to travel (motivators), what challenges would they face (barriers), and what would enable them to travel (facilitators).Design, setting, and participantsThis nationally representative online survey study asked respondents to consider complex cancer surgery at their local hospital or a hospital specializing in cancer an hour farther away. Completed surveys were weighted across sociodemographics to be nationally representative and outcomes were reported as weighted percentages. In January 2018, a panel of 1817 US adults recruited by address- and telephone-based sampling to be nationally representative were invited to take the survey. Data analysis was conducted from January 24, 2018, to September 19, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of respondents motivated to travel by specific quality and safety indicators (motivators), magnitude in difference that would be necessary, proportion facing specific barriers, and proportion enabled to move by facilitators. Resistant individuals were identified as people who would not travel except for the largest (top quartile) outcomes differences.ResultsThere were 1016 completed surveys (response rate of 55.9%). The weighted median age was 48 years, 52% were female, median annual income was between $60 000 and $75 000, and 85% lived in a metropolitan area. Nonresponders were more likely than responders to be female, younger, nonwhite, less educated, and lower income (female: 54.4% vs 48.3%; P = .01; younger [aged <45 years]: 56.3% vs 37.1%; P < .001; nonwhite: 41.6% vs 30.0%; P < .001; less than college education: 43.8% vs 32.4%; P < .001; income <$30 000: 22.1% vs 17.1%; P = .01). Superior safety or oncologic outcomes, presented separately, motivated an average of 92% of respondents (95% CI, 90%-94%) to travel. One-third were easily motivated, requiring less than 1% advantage in safety or quality, while 12% were particularly resistant across outcomes. Respondents with lower income (income <$25 000: odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.19-3.39) and nonwhite race (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.42) were more resistant to travel. At least 1 barrier was identified by 74% of respondents (95% CI, 72%-77%), most commonly financial (costs/insurance). However, 94% of respondents (95% CI, 92%-96%) with barriers would travel if provided facilitators, many of which were relatively low cost (transportation, parking, and hotel).Conclusions and relevanceIt appears that most of the US public could be motivated to travel to safer hospitals for complex cancer surgery, yet most would require some support to move. Further efforts to ensure that benefits from regionalization are equitable across sociodemographic strata are indicated.