Dataset Information

Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Various 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

Longitudinal 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.

Exposures

High-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards.

Main outcomes and measures

Patients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates.

Results

Overall, 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 relevance

Although 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.

SUBMITTER: Sheetz KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6694402 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectivesFor oncological care, there is a clear tendency towards centralisation and collaboration aimed at improving patient outcomes. However, in market-based healthcare systems, this trend is related to the potential trade-off between hospital volume and hospital competition. We analyse the association between hospital volume, competition from neighbouring hospitals and outcomes for patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast cancer (IBC).Outcome measuresSurgical margins, 90 days re-excision, overall survival.Design, setting, participantsIn this population-based study, we use data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Our study sample consists of 136 958 patients who underwent surgery for IBC between 2004 and 2014 in the Netherlands.ResultsOur findings show that treatment types as well as patient and tumour characteristics explain most of the variation in all outcomes. After adjusting for confounding variables and intrahospital correlation in multivariate logistic regressions, hospital volume and competition from neighbouring hospitals did not show significant associations with surgical margins and re-excision rates. For patients who underwent surgery in hospitals annually performing 250 surgeries or more, multilevel Cox proportional hazard models show that survival was somewhat higher (HR 0.94). Survival in hospitals with four or more (potential) competitors within 30 km was slightly higher (HR 0.97). However, this effect did not hold after changing this proxy for hospital competition.ConclusionsBased on the selection of patient outcomes, hospital volume and regional competition appear to play only a limited role in the explanation of variation in IBC outcomes across Dutch hospitals. Further research into hospital variation for high-volume tumours like the one studied here is recommended to (i) use consistently measured quality indicators that better reflect multidisciplinary clinical practice and patient and provider decision-making, (ii) include more sophisticated measures for hospital competition and (iii) assess the entire process of care within the hospital, as well as care provided by other providers in cancer networks.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Prior studies investigating hospital mechanical ventilation volume-outcome associations have had conflicting findings. Volume-outcome relationships within contemporary mechanical ventilation practices are unclear. We sought to determine associations between hospital mechanical ventilation volume and patient outcomes. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:The California Patient Discharge Database 2016. PATIENTS:Adult nonsurgical patients receiving mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS:The primary outcome was hospital death with secondary outcomes of tracheostomy and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to determine the association between patient outcomes and hospital mechanical ventilation volume quartile. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We identified 51,689 patients across 274 hospitals who required mechanical ventilation in California in 2016. 38.2% of patients died in the hospital with 4.4% receiving a tracheostomy. Among survivors, 29.5% required readmission within 30 days of discharge. Patients admitted to high versus low volume hospitals had higher odds of death (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17-1.68) and tracheostomy (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.06). However, odds of 30-day readmission among survivors was lower at high versus low volume hospitals (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89). Higher hospital mechanical ventilation volume was weakly correlated with higher hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates (? = 0.16; p = 0.008). These moderately strong observations were supported by multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Contrary to previous studies, we observed worse patient outcomes at higher mechanical ventilation volume hospitals. In the setting of increasing use of mechanical ventilation and changes in mechanical ventilation practices, multiple mechanisms of worse outcomes including resource strain are possible. Future studies investigating differences in processes of care between high and low volume hospitals are necessary.