Dataset Information

Minimum volume standards in day surgery: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The aim was to find out if and for what indications are minimum volume standards (MVS) applied in the day surgery setting and whether the application of MVS improves patient relevant outcomes. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search in seven databases on July 12th, 2019. Concerning effectiveness and safety, the data retrieved from the selected studies were systematically extracted into data-extraction tables. Two independent researchers (MS, CS) systematically assessed the quality of evidence using the quality assessment tool for individual studies of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) called Task Force Checklist for Quality Assessment of Retrospective Database Studies. No instances of disagreement occurred. No further data processing was applied. RESULTS:The systematic literature search, together with hand search, yielded 595 hits. No prospective or controlled studies were found. Data from eight retrospective studies were used in the analysis of clinical effectiveness and safety on seven indications: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, cataract surgery, meniscectomy, thyroidectomy, primary hip arthroscopy, open carpal tunnel release, and rotator cuff repair. All interventions (except for carpal tunnel release and thyroidectomy) confirmed a volume-outcome relationship (VOR) with relation to surgeon/hospital volume, however, none established MVS for the respective interventions. Safety related data were reported without its relationship to surgeon/hospital volume. CONCLUSIONS:This present paper provides some evidence in favor of the VOR, however, it based on low quality retrospective data-analyses. The present results cannot offer any clear-cut MVS thresholds for the day surgery setting and so the simple transition from inpatient results (that support MVS) to the day surgery setting is questionable. Further quality assuring policy approaches should be considered.

SUBMITTER: Stanak M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7501608 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimum volume standards in day surgery: a systematic review.

Stanak Michal M Strohmaier Christoph C

BMC health services research 20200918 1

<h4>Background</h4>The aim was to find out if and for what indications are minimum volume standards (MVS) applied in the day surgery setting and whether the application of MVS improves patient relevant outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search in seven databases on July 12th, 2019. Concerning effectiveness and safety, the data retrieved from the selected studies were systematically extracted into data-extraction tables. Two independent researchers (MS, CS ...[more]

PMID: 32948161

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 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: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:ObjectiveBecause the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) is elective, good short- and long-term outcomes are imperative. The objective of the present study was to examine the outcomes of endovascular management of IC reported in the Vascular Quality Initiative and compare them with the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for IC treatment to determine whether real-world results are within the guidelines.MethodsPatients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention for IC from 2004 to 2017 with complete data and >9 month follow-up were included. The primary outcome measures were IC recurrence and repeat procedures performed ≤2 years after the initial treatment.ResultsA total of 16,152 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 66 years. Of the 16,152 patients, 61% were men, 45% were current smokers, and 28% had been discharged without antiplatelet or statin medication. Adjusted analyses revealed that treatment of more than two arteries was associated with a shorter time to IC recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.31) and a shorter time to repeat procedures (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.45). The use of atherectomy was also associated with a shorter time to IC recurrence (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.08-1.33) and a shorter time to repeat procedures (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.52). Discharge with antiplatelet and statin medications was associated with a longer time to IC recurrence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91) and a longer time to repeat procedures (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.87). Life-table analysis at 2 years revealed that only 32% of patients were free from IC recurrence, although 76% had not undergone repeat procedures. Stratified by anatomic treatment level, 37% of isolated aortoiliac interventions, 22% of aortoiliac and femoropopliteal interventions, 30% of isolated femoropopliteal interventions, and 20% of femoropopliteal and tibial interventions had remained free from IC recurrence at 2 years.ConclusionsMost patients treated with an endovascular approach to IC did not meet the Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines for long-term freedom from recurrent symptoms of >50% at 2 years. Many lacked preprocedure optimization of medical management. The use of atherectomy and treatment of more than two arteries were associated with poor outcomes after peripheral vascular intervention for IC, because only 32% of these patients were free from recurrent symptoms at 2 years. Even when risk factor modification is optimized before the procedure, vascular specialists should be aware of the association between atherectomy and multivessel interventions with poorer long-term outcomes and counsel patients appropriately before intervention.

Dataset Information

Minimum volume standards in day surgery: a systematic review.

Publications

Minimum volume standards in day surgery: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets