Dataset Information

Trends in Patient Volume by Hospital Type and the Association of These Trends With Time to Cancer Treatment Initiation.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Increasing demand for cancer care may be outpacing the capacity of hospitals to provide timely treatment, particularly at referral centers such as National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and academic centers. Whether the rate of patient volume growth has strained hospital capacity to provide timely treatment is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate trends in patient volume by hospital type and the association between a hospital's annual patient volume growth and time to treatment initiation (TTI) for patients with cancer.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective, hospital-level, cross-sectional study used longitudinal data from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Adult patients older than 40 years who had received a diagnosis of 1 of the 10 most common incident cancers and initiated their treatment at a Commission on Cancer-accredited hospital were included. Data were analyzed between December 19, 2019, and March 27, 2020.

Exposures

The mean annual rate of patient volume growth at a hospital.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcome was TTI, defined as the number of days between diagnosis and the first cancer treatment. The association between a hospital's mean annual rate of patient volume growth and TTI was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model containing a patient volume × time interaction. The mean annual change in TTI over the study period by hospital type was estimated by including a hospital type × time interaction term.

Results

The study sample included 4 218 577 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [11.4] years; 56.6% women) treated at 1351 hospitals. From 2007 to 2016, patient volume increased 40% at NCI centers, 25% at academic centers, and 8% at community hospitals. In 2007, the mean TTI was longer at NCI and academic centers than at community hospitals (NCI: 50 days [95% CI, 48-52 days]; academic: 43 days [95% CI, 42-44 days]; community: 37 days [95% CI, 36-37 days]); however, the mean annual increase in TTI was greater at community hospitals (0.56 days; 95% CI, 0.49-0.62 days) than at NCI centers (-0.73 days; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.51 days) and academic centers (0.14 days; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26 days). An annual volume growth rate of 100 patients, a level observed at less than 1% of hospitals, was associated with a mean increase in TTI of 0.24 days (95% CI, 0.18-0.29 days).

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, from 2007 to 2016, across the studied cancer types, patients increasingly initiated their cancer treatment at NCI and academic centers. Although increases in patient volume at these centers outpaced that at community hospitals, faster growth was not associated with clinically meaningful treatment delays.

SUBMITTER: Frosch ZAK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8271360 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceVarious 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsLongitudinal 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.ExposuresHigh-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards.Main outcomes and measuresPatients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates.ResultsOverall, 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 relevanceAlthough 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.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require insulin, yet little is known about the patterns and quality of pharmacologic care received following insulin initiation. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas be discontinued at the time of insulin initiation to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, and that treatment be intensified if HbA1c levels remain above-target 3 months after insulin initiation.ObjectiveTo describe pharmacologic treatment patterns over time among adults initiating insulin and/or intensifying insulin treatment.DesignObservational study.SubjectsA large commercially insured population of adult patients without recorded type 1 diabetes who initiated insulin.Main measuresWe evaluated changes in non-insulin antidiabetic medication use during the 120 days immediately following insulin initiation, rates of increase in insulin dose and/or dosing frequency during the 270 days following an insulin initiation treatment period of 90 days, and rates of insulin discontinuation.Key resultsSeven thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two patients initiated insulin during 2003-2008, with the majority (61 %) initiating basal insulin only. Metformin (55 %), sulfonylureas (39 %), and thiazolidinediones (30 %) were commonly used prior to insulin initiation. Metformin was continued by 64 % of patients following mixed or mealtime insulin initiation; the continuation rate was nearly as high for sulfonylureas (58 %). Insulin dose and/or dosing frequency increased among 22.9 % of patients. Insulin was discontinued by 27 % of patients.ConclusionsWe found evidence of substantial departures from guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Insulin secretagogues were frequently co-prescribed with insulin. The majority of patients had no evidence of treatment intensification following insulin initiation, although this finding is difficult to interpret without HbA1c levels. While each patient's care should be individualized, our data suggest that the quality of care following insulin initiation can be improved.

Project description:ImportanceThirty-day readmission rates have been suggested as a marker for quality of care. By investigating the factors associated with readmissions in all otolaryngology subspecialties we provide data relevant for the development of risk stratification systems to improve outcomes.ObjectiveTo establish the association of surgical and hospital volume and patient characteristics with 30-day readmission rates to guide the development of otolaryngology-specific risk stratification models.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study including adult patients who underwent inpatient otolaryngology surgery in New York State between 1995 and 2015 was conducted using the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). Regression techniques were used to describe relationships of patient-level factors, hospital, and surgeon volume to 30-day readmission rates in New York State.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome measures were patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level risk factors for readmission. Secondary outcome measures were rate of readmissions by subspecialty procedure and by diagnosis on readmission.ResultsWe identified 254 257 cases of otolaryngology surgery (147 065 women [58%], mean [SD] age 50 [17] years). The 30-day readmission rate was 6%. In a multivariable model, odds ratios (ORs) identified Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.46; 99% CI, 1.36-1.57), Medicare insurance (OR, 1.32; 99% CI, 1.24-1.42), bottom quartile income (OR, 1.08; 99% CI, 1.01-1.15), patient comorbidities measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (CCI >1; OR, 2.31; 99% CI, 2.16-2.47), length of stay (LOS) (LOS >10 days; OR, 2.29; 99% CI, 2.00-2.45), rhinology (OR, 1.37; 99% CI, 1.24-1.51), laryngology (OR, 1.98; 99% CI, 1.62-2.43), and head and neck cancer (OR, 1.27; 99% CI, 1.17-1.37) procedures as readmission predictors. High-volume surgeons were protective of 30-day readmission (OR, 0.67; 99% CI, 0.635-0.708) relative to low volume. Hospital volume was not significantly associated to readmissions. The most common causes of readmission included wound- (2682 patients, 18%), respiratory- (1776 patients, 12%), cardiovascular- (1210 patients, 8%), and volume- (1089 patients, 7%) related disorders.Conclusions and relevanceThis study evaluated the combined effects of patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors on 30-day readmission after otolaryngology surgery. Socioeconomic factors, patient comorbidities, surgeon volumes, and procedure were significantly associated with 30-day readmission. Though the cause of 30-day readmission is multifactorial, a large portion is driven by socioeconomic factors. Addressing these disparities at the system level is necessary to address the described readmission disparities. The development of risk-stratification models based on patient-, procedure-, and surgeon-level factors may help facilitate resource distribution.

Project description:ImportanceA volume-outcome association exists for larynx cancer surgery, but to date it has not been investigated for specific surgical procedures.ObjectivesTo characterize the volume-outcome association specifically for laryngectomy surgery and to identify a minimum hospital volume threshold associated with improved outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 45 156 patients who underwent laryngectomy procedures for a malignant laryngeal or hypopharyngeal neoplasm between January 2001 and December 2011. The analysis was performed in 2018. Hospital laryngectomy volume was modeled as a categorical variable.Main outcomes and measuresAssociations between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospitalization, and costs were examined using multivariate logistic regression analysis.ResultsAmong 45 156 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; age range, 20-96 years; 80.2% male) at 5516 hospitals, higher-volume hospitals were more likely to be teaching hospitals in urban locations; were more likely to treat patients who had hypopharyngeal cancer, were of white race/ethnicity, were admitted electively, had no comorbidity, and had private insurance; and were more likely to perform flap reconstruction or concurrent neck dissection. After controlling for all other variables, hospitals treating more than 6 cases per year were associated with lower odds of surgical and medical complications, with a greater reduction in the odds of complications with increasing hospital volume. High-volume hospitals in the top-volume quintile (>28 cases per year) were associated with decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.88), postoperative surgical complications (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.79), and acute medical complications (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.81). A statistically meaningful negative association was observed between very high-volume hospital care and the mean incremental length of hospitalization (-3.7 days; 95% CI, -4.9 to -2.4 days) and hospital-related costs (-$4777; 95% CI, -$9463 to -$900).Conclusions and relevanceLaryngectomy outcomes appear to be associated with hospital volume, with reduced morbidity associated with a minimum hospital volume threshold and with reduced mortality, morbidity, length of hospitalization, and costs associated with higher hospital volume. These data support the concept of centralization of complex care at centers able to meet minimum volume thresholds to improve patient outcomes.

Project description:There were numerous efforts in the United States during the previous decade to concentrate selected surgical procedures in high-volume hospitals. It remains unknown whether referral patterns for high-risk surgery have changed as a result and how operative mortality has been affected.We used national Medicare data to study patients undergoing one of eight different cancer and cardiovascular operations from 1999 through 2008. For each procedure, we examined trends in hospital volume and market concentration, defined as the proportion of Medicare patients undergoing surgery in the top decile of hospitals by volume per year. We used regression-based techniques to assess the effects of volume and market concentration on mortality over time, adjusting for case mix.Median hospital volumes of four cancer resections (lung, esophagus, pancreas, and bladder) and of repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rose substantially. Depending on the procedure, higher hospital volumes were attributable to an increasing number of cases nationwide, an increasing market concentration, or both. Hospital volumes rose slightly for aortic-valve replacement but fell for coronary-artery bypass grafting and carotid endarterectomy. Operative mortality declined for all eight procedures, ranging from a relative decline of 8% for carotid endarterectomy (1.3% mortality in 1999 and 1.2% in 2008) to 36% for AAA repair (4.4% in 1999 and 2.8% in 2008). Higher hospital volumes explained a large portion of the decline in mortality for pancreatectomy (67% of the decline), cystectomy (37%), and esophagectomy (32%), but not for the other procedures.Operative mortality with high-risk surgery fell substantially during the previous decade. Although increased market concentration and hospital volume have contributed to declining mortality with some high-risk cancer operations, declines in mortality with other procedures are largely attributable to other factors. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).