Dataset Information

Potential Consequences of Minimum-Volume Standards for Hospitals Treating Women With Ovarian Cancer.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Wright JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6548333 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Potential Consequences of Minimum-Volume Standards for Hospitals Treating Women With Ovarian Cancer.

Wright Jason D JD Huang Yongmei Y Melamed Alexander A Tergas Ana I AI St Clair Caryn M CM Hou June Y JY Khoury-Collado Fady F Ananth Cande V CV Neugut Alfred I AI Hershman Dawn L DL

Obstetrics and gynecology 20190601 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the potential effects of implementing minimum hospital volume standards for ovarian cancer on survival and access to care.<h4>Methods</h4>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 o ...[more]

PMID: 31135724

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: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.

Dataset Information

Potential Consequences of Minimum-Volume Standards for Hospitals Treating Women With Ovarian Cancer.

Publications

Potential Consequences of Minimum-Volume Standards for Hospitals Treating Women With Ovarian Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets