Dataset Information

Comparing textbook outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for cancer at U. S. News & World Report ranked hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of the current study was to define and compare rates of textbook outcomes (TO) among patients undergoing colorectal, lung, esophagus, liver, and pancreatic surgery for cancer at U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) ranked hospitals.

Methods

Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files 2013-2015 were utilized to examine the relationship of TO and USNWR hospital ratings following surgery for colorectal, lung, esophageal, pancreatic, and liver cancer. TO was defined as no postoperative surgical complications, no prolonged length of hospital stay, no readmission within 90 days after discharge, and no postoperative mortality within 90 days after surgery.

Results

Among the 35,352 Medicare patients included in the cohort, 16,820 (47.6%) underwent surgery at honor roll hospitals, whereas 18 532 (52.4%) underwent surgery at non-honor roll hospitals. The overall proportion of patients who achieved TO was 50.1%. In examining the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent surgery, there was no difference in the odds of achieving TO at honor roll vs non-honor roll hospitals (colorectal: odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.10; lung: OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87-1.32; esophagus: OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.72-2.89; liver: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.87-1.84; pancreas: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.67-1.62).

Conclusion and relevance

Patients undergoing surgery for lung, esophageal, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer had comparable rates of TO at honor roll vs non-honor roll hospitals. No linear association was observed between hospital position in the rank and postoperative outcomes such as TO indicating that patients should not overly focus on the exact position within USNWR ranked hospitals. These data highlight to patients and physicians that up to one-half of patients undergoing surgery for cancer should anticipate at least one adverse outcome.

SUBMITTER: Mehta R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292307 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLeading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their brands with other hospitals through growing networks of affiliations. However, the brand of top-ranked cancer hospitals may evoke distinct reputations for safety and quality that do not extend to all hospitals within these networks.ObjectiveTo assess perioperative mortality of Medicare beneficiaries after complex cancer surgery across hospitals participating in networks with top-ranked cancer hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was performed of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for top-ranked cancer hospitals (as assessed by U.S. News and World Report) and affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Participants were 29 228 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure]) between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2016.ExposuresUndergoing complex cancer surgery at a top-ranked cancer hospital vs an affiliated hospital.Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted 90-day mortality estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and comparison of the relative safety of hospitals within each cancer network estimated using standardized mortality ratios.ResultsA total of 17 300 patients (59.2%; 8612 women and 8688 men; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 59 top-ranked hospitals and 11 928 patients (40.8%; 6287 women and 5641 men; mean [SD] age, 76.2 [6.9] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 343 affiliated hospitals. Overall, surgery performed at affiliated hospitals was associated with higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59; P < .001), with odds ratios that ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001) for colectomy to 2.04 (95% CI, 1.41-2.95; P < .001) for gastrectomy. When the relative safety of each top-ranked cancer hospital was compared with its collective affiliates, the top-ranked hospital was safer than the affiliates in 41 of 49 studied networks (83.7%; 95% CI, 73.1%-93.3%).Conclusions and relevanceThe likelihood of surviving complex cancer surgery appears to be greater at top-ranked cancer hospitals compared with the affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Further investigation of performance across trusted cancer networks could enhance informed decision making for complex cancer care.

Project description:Importance:Hospital networks formed around top-ranked cancer hospitals represent an opportunity to optimize complex cancer care in the community. Objective:To compare the short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment at top-ranked cancer hospitals and the affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study was conducted using data from the unabridged version of the National Cancer Database. Included patients were individuals 18 years or older who underwent surgical treatment for esophageal, gastric, lung, pancreatic, colorectal, or bladder cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Patient outcomes after complex surgical procedures for cancer at top-ranked cancer hospitals (as ranked in top 50 by US News and World Report) were compared with outcomes at affiliates of top-ranked cancer hospitals (affiliation listed in American Hospitals Association survey and confirmed by search of internet presence). Data were analyzed from July through December 2019. Exposures:Undergoing complex cancer treatment at a top-ranked cancer hospital or an affiliated hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures:The association of affiliate status with short-term survival (ie, 90-day mortality) was compared using logistic regression, and the association of affiliate status with long-term survival was compared using time-to-event models, adjusting for patient demographic, payer, clinical, and treatment factors. Results:Among 119?834 patients who underwent surgical treatment for cancer, 79?981 patients (66.7%) were treated at top-ranked cancer hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [58-74] years; 40?910 [54.9%] men) and 39?853 patients (33.3%) were treated at affiliate hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [60-77] years; 19?004 [50.0%] men). In a pooled analysis of all cancer types, adjusted perioperative mortality within 90 days of surgical treatment was higher at affiliate hospitals compared with top-ranked hospitals (odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.49-1.89]; P?<?.001). Adjusted long-term survival following cancer treatment at affiliate hospitals was only 77% that of top-ranked hospitals (time ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.83]; P?<?.001). The survival advantage was not fully explained by differences in annual surgical volume, with both long- and short-term survival remaining superior at top-ranked hospitals even after models were adjusted for volume. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment were superior at top-ranked hospitals compared with affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Further study of cancer care within top-ranked cancer networks could reveal collaborative opportunities to improve survival across a broad contingent of the US population.

Project description:Second Victim Programs (SVPs) provide support for healthcare providers involved in a near-miss, medical error, or adverse patient outcomes. Little is known about existence and structure of SVPs in top performing US hospitals. We performed a prospective study and interviewed individuals representing SVPs from 20 US News and World Report (USNWR) Honor Roll Hospitals. Telephone interviews were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. To allow identification of both quantitative and qualitative themes that unified or distinguished programs with SVPs from each other, a content analysis approach was used. Of the Top 20 UNSWR hospitals, nineteen individuals with knowledge of or involvement in SVPs were identified. One individual represented two hospital systems for the same institution. Thirteen representatives agreed to participate, 12 declined, and 5 did not respond. One individual who initially agreed to participate did not attend the interview. Among twelve representatives interviewed, 10 reported establishment of SVPs at their hospitals between 2011 and 2016. Most program representatives reported that participants sought support voluntarily. Four domains were identified in the qualitative analysis: (a) identification of need for Second Victim Program (SVP); (b) challenges to program viability; (c) structural changes following SVP creation, and (d) insights for success. Driving SVP creation was the need support medical providers following a traumatic patient event. Poor physician participation due to the stigma associated with seeking support was commonly reported as a challenge. However, acceptance of the mission of SVPs, growing recognition of the value of the program across hospital departments, and systematic safety enhancements were cited as key advantages. To ensure success, participants suggested training a variety of volunteers and incorporating SVPs within quality improvement processes. In this convenience sample, programs for healthcare providers that experience psychosocial or emotional trauma from clinical care were uncommon. Variation in structure, performance, and measures of success among SVPs was observed. A systematic approach to evaluating SVPs is needed to help inform institutions of how to best serve their second victims.

Project description:ImportanceThe US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal operations provides guidance and referral of care for medical and surgical gastrointestinal conditions.ObjectiveTo investigate whether USNWR top-ranked hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgical procedures are associated with improvements in patient outcomes, compared with nonranked hospitals, in common advanced laparoscopic abdominal operations.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used the Vizient database, which contains administrative, clinical, and financial inpatient information of index hospitalizations for US academic centers and their affiliated hospitals that are members of Vizient. Data were obtained on advanced laparoscopic abdominal operations performed from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017, at USNWR top-ranked hospitals (n = 16 296 operations) and nonranked hospitals (n = 35 573 operations). Abdominal operations included bariatric, colorectal, and hiatal hernia procedures. Operations on patients younger than 18 years, emergent cases, conversion cases, and patients with extreme severity of illness were excluded.Main outcomes and measuresOutcome measures included in-hospital mortality, mortality index (observed to expected mortality ratio), serious morbidity, length of stay, and cost.ResultsA total of 51 869 advanced laparoscopic abdominal operations were performed at 351 academic health centers and their community affiliates. Of these procedures, 16 296 (31.4%) were performed at 41 top-ranked hospitals and 35 573 (68.6%) at 310 nonranked hospitals. The annual case volume at top-ranked hospitals was 397 compared with 114 at nonranked hospitals. Between top-ranked and nonranked hospitals, no significant differences were found in in-hospital mortality (0.04% vs 0.07%; P = .33) or serious morbidity (1.06% vs 1.02%; P = .75). Compared with nonranked hospitals, advanced laparoscopic abdominal operations performed at top-ranked hospitals had higher mean costs ($7128 [$4917] vs $7742 [$6787]; P < .01) and longer mean lengths of stay (2.38 [2.60] days vs 2.73 [3.31] days; P < .01).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough, among academic centers, the annual volume of advanced laparoscopic abdominal operations was 3-fold higher for USNWR top-ranked hospitals compared with nonranked hospitals, the volume did not appear to be associated with improved patient outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intra-abdominal emergency surgery is associated with high mortality risk and long length of hospital stay. The objective of this study was to explore variations in surgery rates, the relationship between admission source and discharge destination, and whether the postoperative length of stay was related to nursing home capacity in Irish counties. METHODS:Data on emergency hospital episodes for 2014-18 for patients aged over 65?years with a primary abdominal procedure code were obtained from the National Quality Assurance Improvement System. Data on population and nursing home capacity were obtained from the Central Statistics Office and the Health Information and Quality Authority. Episode rates per 100,000 were estimated for sex and age groups and compared between 26 Irish counties. The association between admission source and discharge destination was explored in terms episode numbers, length of stay and mortality. A negative binomial regression model estimated casemix adjusted excess post-operative length of stay. The correlation between excess post-operative length of stay and nursing home capacity was explored by linear regression. RESULTS:Overall, 4951 hospital episodes were included. The annual surgery rate ranged from 100 episodes per 100,000 65-69?years old to 250 per 100,000 85-89?year old men. 90% of the episodes were admitted from patients' home. Four in five of these patients returned to their home while 12.7% died at hospital. The proportion of episodes where patients returned to their home reduced to two in five for those aged 85-89?years. The post-operative length of stay was 13.6?days longer (p <?0.01) for episodes admitted from home and discharged to nursing home in comparison with episodes discharged home. A negative association (p =?0.08) was found between excess post-operative length of stay and county-level nursing home capacity. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides relevant information to support informed consent to surgery for patients and clinicians and to improve the provision of care to older patients presenting with intra-abdominal emergencies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether the US News & World Report (USNWR) ranking of the medical school a physician attended is associated with patient outcomes and healthcare spending.DesignObservational study.SettingMedicare, 2011-15.Participants20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (n=996 212), who were admitted as an emergency to hospital with a medical condition and treated by general internists.Main outcome measuresAssociation between the USNWR ranking of the medical school a physician attended and the physician's patient outcomes (30 day mortality and 30 day readmission rates) and Medicare Part B spending, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (which effectively compared physicians practicing within the same hospital). A sensitivity analysis employed a natural experiment by focusing on patients treated by hospitalists, because patients are plausibly randomly assigned to hospitalists based on their specific work schedules. Alternative rankings of medical schools based on social mission score or National Institute of Health (NIH) funding were also investigated.Results996 212 admissions treated by 30 322 physicians were examined for the analysis of mortality. When using USNWR primary care rankings, physicians who graduated from higher ranked schools had slightly lower 30 day readmission rates (adjusted rate 15.7% for top 10 schools v 16.1% for schools ranked ≥50; adjusted risk difference 0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.8%; P for trend=0.005) and lower spending (adjusted Part B spending $1029 (£790; €881) v $1066; adjusted difference $36, 95% confidence interval $20 to $52; P for trend <0.001) compared with graduates of lower ranked schools, but no difference in 30 day mortality. When using USNWR research rankings, physicians graduating from higher ranked schools had slightly lower healthcare spending than graduates from lower ranked schools, but no differences in patient mortality or readmissions. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients treated by hospitalists yielded similar findings. Little or no relation was found between alternative rankings (based on social mission score or NIH funding) and patient outcomes or costs of care.ConclusionsOverall, little or no relation was found between the USNWR ranking of the medical school from which a physician graduated and subsequent patient mortality or readmission rates. Physicians who graduated from highly ranked medical schools had slightly lower spending than graduates of lower ranked schools.