Dataset Information

Optimal surgeon and hospital volume thresholds to reduce mortality and length of stay for CABG.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We used nationwide population-based data to identify optimal hospital and surgeon volume thresholds and to discover the effects of these volume thresholds on operative mortality and length of stay (LOS) for coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG).

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

General acute care hospitals throughout Taiwan.

Participants

A total of 12,892 CABG patients admitted between 2011 and 2015 were extracted from Taiwan National Health Insurance claims data.

Main outcome measures

Operative mortality and LOS. Restricted cubic splines were applied to discover the optimal hospital and surgeon volume thresholds needed to reduce operative mortality. Generalized estimating equation regression modeling, Cox proportional-hazards modeling and instrumental variables analysis were employed to examine the effects of hospital and surgeon volume thresholds on the operative mortality and LOS.

Results

The volume thresholds for hospitals and surgeons were 55 cases and 5 cases per year, respectively. Patients who underwent CABG from hospitals that did not reach the volume threshold had higher operative mortality than those who received CABG from hospitals that did reach the volume threshold. Patients who underwent CABG with surgeons who did not reach the volume threshold had higher operative mortality and LOS than those who underwent CABG with surgeons who did reach the volume threshold.

Conclusions

This is the first study to identify the optimal hospital and surgeon volume thresholds for reducing operative mortality and LOS. This supports policies regionalizing CABG at high-volume hospitals. Identifying volume thresholds could help patients, providers, and policymakers provide optimal care.

SUBMITTER: Chou YY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8046183 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMany strategies to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) have been implemented, but few studies have evaluated hospital-led interventions focused on high-risk populations. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Learning Health System panel commissioned this study to further evaluate system-level interventions for LOS reduction.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize evidence regarding potential systems-level strategies to reduce LOS for patients at high risk for prolonged LOS.Evidence reviewMultiple databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, were searched for English-language systematic reviews from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2020, with updated searches through January 19, 2021. The scope of the protocol was determined with input from AHRQ Key Informants. Systematic reviews were included if they reported on hospital-led interventions intended to decrease LOS for high-risk populations, defined as those with high-risk medical conditions or socioeconomically vulnerable populations (eg, patients with high levels of socioeconomic risk, who are medically uninsured or underinsured, with limited English proficiency, or who are hospitalized at a safety-net, tertiary, or quaternary care institution). Exclusion criteria included interventions that were conducted outside of the hospital setting, including community health programs. Data extraction was conducted independently, with extraction of strength of evidence (SOE) ratings provided by systematic reviews; if unavailable, SOE was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center methods guide.FindingsOur searches yielded 4432 potential studies. We included 19 systematic reviews reported in 20 articles. The reviews described 8 strategies for reducing LOS in high-risk populations: discharge planning, geriatric assessment, medication management, clinical pathways, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary care, case management, hospitalist services, and telehealth. Interventions were most frequently designed for older patients, often those who were frail (9 studies), or patients with heart failure. There were notable evidence gaps, as there were no systematic reviews studying interventions for patients with socioeconomic risk. For patients with medically complex conditions, discharge planning, medication management, and interdisciplinary care teams were associated with inconsistent outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality) across populations. For patients with heart failure, clinical pathways and case management were associated with reduced length of stay (clinical pathways: mean difference reduction, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.33 to 2.44] days; case management: mean difference reduction, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.52 to 2.04] days).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review found inconsistent results across all high-risk populations on the effectiveness associated with interventions, such as discharge planning, that are often widely used by health systems. This systematic review highlights important evidence gaps, such as the lack of existing systematic reviews focused on patients with socioeconomic risk factors, and the need for further research.

Project description:Hospital length of stay (LOS) and time for a patient to reach clinical stability (TCS) have increasingly become important outcomes when investigating ways in which to combat Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP). Difficulties arise when deciding how to handle in-hospital mortality. Ad-hoc approaches that are commonly used to handle time to event outcomes with mortality can give disparate results and provide conflicting conclusions based on the same data. To ensure compatibility among studies investigating these outcomes, this type of data should be handled in a consistent and appropriate fashion.Using both simulated data and data from the international Community Acquired Pneumonia Organization (CAPO) database, we evaluate two ad-hoc approaches for handling mortality when estimating the probability of hospital discharge and clinical stability: 1) restricting analysis to those patients who lived, and 2) assigning individuals who die the "worst" outcome (right-censoring them at the longest recorded LOS or TCS). Estimated probability distributions based on these approaches are compared with right-censoring the individuals who died at time of death (the complement of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimator), and treating death as a competing risk (the cumulative incidence estimator). Tests for differences in probability distributions based on the four methods are also contrasted.The two ad-hoc approaches give different estimates of the probability of discharge and clinical stability. Analysis restricted to patients who survived is conceptually problematic, as estimation is conditioned on events that happen at a future time. Estimation based on assigning those patients who died the worst outcome (longest LOS and TCS) coincides with the complement of the KM estimator based on the subdistribution hazard, which has been previously shown to be equivalent to the cumulative incidence estimator. However, in either case the time to in-hospital mortality is ignored, preventing simultaneous assessment of patient mortality in addition to LOS and/or TCS. The power to detect differences in underlying hazards of discharge between patient populations differs for test statistics based on the four approaches, and depends on the underlying hazard ratio of mortality between the patient groups.Treating death as a competing risk gives estimators which address the clinical questions of interest, and allows for simultaneous modelling of both in-hospital mortality and TCS / LOS. This article advocates treating mortality as a competing risk when investigating other time related outcomes.

Project description:Language barriers between patients and providers may influence the process and quality of care.To examine the association of language preference with length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality for patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Electronic administrative hospital discharge data for all non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries age 35 years and older admitted to all acute care California hospitals with a diagnosis of AMI between 1994 and 1998.We used multivariate regression to explore whether observed differences in the hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality between non-English preference (NEP) and English preference (EP) individuals could be explained by individual and/or hospital level factors. We adjusted for patient level characteristics using 24 covariates from a previously validated prediction model of mortality after hospitalization for AMI.Of 12,609 Medicaid patients across 401 California hospitals, 2,757 (22%) had NEP. NEP was associated with a 3.9% increased LOS (95% CI 0.7, 7.1; p = 0.02) in unadjusted analysis and a 3.8% increased LOS (95% CI 0.3, 7.3; p = 0.03) after controlling for patient level characteristics. Differences in LOS were no longer significant after adjusting receipt of cardiac procedure/ surgery (2.8%; 95% CI -0.6, 6.2; p = 0.1) or after adjusting for hospital (0.9%; 95% CI -2.5, 4.3; p = 0.6). Non-English language preference was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in unadjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% CI 0.69, 0.94; p = 0.005), but was not significant after adjusting for patient level characteristics (adjusted OR [AOR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.78, 1.27; p = 0.6). Adjusting for receipt of cardiac procedure/ surgery (AOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.79, 1.18; p = 0.7) and hospital (AOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78; 1.21; p = 0.8) did not alter this finding.Language preference is not associated with AMI mortality, and the small increase in length of stay associated with non-English preference is accounted for by hospital level factors. Our results suggest that system level differences are important to consider in studies of the effect of language barriers in the health care setting.