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

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.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

Vascular Surgery Practice Guidelines during COVID-19 Pandemic in a Setting of High Work Volume Against Limited Resources: Perspective of a Developing Country.

BACKGROUND: The situation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Indian subcontinent is worsening. In Bangladesh, rate of new infection has been on the rise despite limited testing facility. Constraint of resources in the health care sector makes the fight against COVID-19 more challenging for a developing country like Bangladesh. Vascular surgeons find themselves in a precarious situation while delivering professional services during this crisis. With the limited number of dedicated vascular surgeons in Bangladesh, it is important to safeguard these professionals without compromising emergency vascular care services in the long term. To this end, we at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka, have developed a working guideline for our vascular surgeons to follow during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guideline takes into account high vascular work volume against limited resources in the country. METHODS: A total of 307 emergency vascular patients were dealt with in the first 4 COVID-19 months (March through June 2020) according to the working guideline, and the results were compared with the 4 pre-COVID-19 months. Vascular trauma, dialysis access complications, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia formed the main bulk of the patient population. Vascular health care workers were regularly screened for COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There was a 38% decrease in the number of patients in the COVID-19 period. Treatment outcome in COVID-19 months were comparable with that in the pre-COVID-19 months except that limb loss in the chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients was higher. COVID-19 infection among the vascular health care professionals was low. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgery practice guidelines customized for the high work volume and limited resources of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka were effective in delivering emergency care during COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring safety of the caregivers. Despite the fact that similar guidelines exist in different parts of the world, we believe that the present one is still relevant on the premises of a deepening COVID-19 crisis in a developing country like Bangladesh.

Volume Standards for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Are Not Associated With Improved Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Volume-outcome relationships exist for many complex surgical procedures, prompting institutions to adopt surgical volume standards for credentialing. The current Leapfrog Group Hospital volume standard for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) is 15 per year. However, this is primarily based on data from the 1990s and may not be appropriate given the dramatic decline in OAR. We sought to quantify the proportion of hospitals meeting volume standards, the difference in perioperative outcomes between low-volume and high-volume hospitals, and the potential travel burden of volume credentialing on patients. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing OAR in 2013-2014. Hospital "all-payer" annual volume was estimated based on the national proportion of patients undergoing OAR covered by Medicare in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Hospital annual OAR volume was characterized as <5/year, 5-9/year, 10-14/year, and ≥15/year (high volume). Adjusted rates of postoperative morbidity, reoperation, failure to rescue, and mortality in 2014 were compared across volume cohorts. Distance between patients' home zip code and high-volume hospitals was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 21,191 OARs were performed at 1,445 hospitals between 2013 and 2014. The average hospital OAR annual volume was 7.8 (standard deviation [SD] ± 9.3) with a median of 4.5. Among the 1,445 hospitals, only 190 (13.1%) performed ≥15 OARs per year whereas 756 hospitals (53.3%) performed <5 per year. Among patients who underwent OAR in 2014, 5,395 (53.3%) received care at a hospital that performed <15 per year. There was no difference in complication, reoperation, or failure to rescue rates between high-volume and low-volume hospitals. Mortality did not significantly differ among OAR volume cohorts. Hospitals performing <5 OARs per year had a mortality rate of 5.7% compared with 5.6% at high-volume hospitals (P = 0.817). One-quarter of patients who received care at a low-volume hospital would have had to travel more than 60 miles to reach a high-volume hospital. CONCLUSIONS: By conservative estimates, only 13% of hospitals performing OAR meet current volume standards. Triaging all patients to high-volume hospitals would require shifting over 5,000 patients annually with no associated improvement in perioperative outcomes. Implementation of the current OAR hospital volume standard may significantly burden patients and hospitals without improving surgical outcomes.

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

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.

International comparison of minimum volume standards for hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Minimum volume standards have been implemented in various countries for quality or safety policies. We present minimum volume standards in an international comparison, focusing on regulatory approaches, selected sets of procedures and thresholds as well as predetermined consequences of non-compliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined a comprehensive literature search in electronic databases in March 2016 with a hand-search of governmental and related organisations' webpages. We also contacted international experts to verify the information we found in the literature and to obtain additional data. RESULTS: Minimum volume standards have been introduced in different countries predominantly for highly specialized surgical procedures. The same evidence has led to different definitions and ways of implementation of minimum volume standards in Germany, Canada (Ontario), the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Austria. The regulatory approaches to minimum volume standards and the predetermined consequences of non-compliance differ across the countries. CONCLUSION: The sets of procedures for which minimum volume standards and corresponding thresholds have been introduced vary across countries, possibly due to different regulatory approaches. In addition, key attributes of the health care system might affect the development and implementation of minimum volume standards. Therefore, it is not feasible to formulate uniform recommendations that are applicable to all countries. Our results provide a comprehensive overview of international minimum volume standards and can be used to inform policy decisions.

Assessment of barriers and facilitators in the implementation of appropriate use criteria for elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The use of inappropriate elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has decreased over time, but hospital-level variation in the use of inappropriate PCI persists. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines may inform efforts to improve elective PCI appropriateness. METHODS: All hospitals performing PCI in Washington State were categorized by their use of inappropriate elective PCI in 2010 to 2013. Semi-structured, qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 17 individual interviews at 13 sites in Washington State to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the AUC guidelines. An inductive and deductive, team-based analytical approach, drawing primarily on Matrix analysis was performed to identify factors affecting implementation of the AUC. RESULTS: Specific facilitators were identified that supported successful implementation of the AUC. These included collaborative catheterization laboratory environments that allow all staff to participate with questions and opinions; ongoing AUC education with catheterization laboratory teams and referring providers; internal AUC peer review processes; interventional cardiologist be directly involved with the pre-procedural review process; checklist-based algorithms for pre-procedural documentation; systems redesign to include insurance companies; and AUC educational information with patients. Barriers to implementation of the AUC included external pressures, such as competition for patients, and the lack of shared medical records with sites that referred patients for coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: The identified facilitators enabled sites to successfully implement the AUC. Catheterization laboratories struggling to successfully implement the AUC may consider utilizing these strategies to improve their processes to improve patient selection for elective PCI.

Association Between Hospital Volume, Processes of Care, and Outcomes in Patients Admitted With Heart Failure: Insights From Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Hospital volume is frequently used as a structural metric for assessing quality of care, but its utility in patients admitted with acute heart failure (HF) is not well characterized. Accordingly, we sought to determine the relationship between admission volume, process-of-care metrics, and short- and long-term outcomes in patients admitted with acute HF. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry with linked Medicare inpatient data at 342 hospitals were assessed. Volume was assessed both as a continuous variable, and quartiles based on the admitting hospital annual HF case volume, as well: 5 to 38 (quartile 1), 39 to 77 (quartile 2), 78 to 122 (quartile 3), 123 to 457 (quartile 4). The main outcome measures were (1) process measures at discharge (achievement of HF achievement, quality, reporting, and composite metrics); (2) 30-day mortality and hospital readmission; and (3) 6-month mortality and hospital readmission. Adjusted logistic and Cox proportional hazards models were used to study these associations with hospital volume. RESULTS: A total of 125 595 patients with HF were included. Patients admitted to high-volume hospitals had a higher burden of comorbidities. On multivariable modeling, lower-volume hospitals were significantly less likely to be adherent to HF process measures than higher-volume hospitals. Higher hospital volume was not associated with a difference in in-hospital (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.05; P=0.78) or 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P=0.26), or 30-day readmissions (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P=0.10). There was a weak association of higher volumes with lower 6-month mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P=0.001) and lower 6-month all-cause readmissions (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95%, CI 0.97-1.00; P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of a large contemporary prospective national quality improvement registry of older patients with HF indicates that hospital volume as a structural metric correlates with process measures, but not with 30-day outcomes, and only marginally with outcomes up to 6 months of follow-up. Hospital profiling should focus on participation in systems of care, adherence to process metrics, and risk-standardized outcomes rather than on hospital volume itself.

Impact of hospital and surgeon case volume on morbidity in colorectal endometriosis management: a plea to define criteria for expert centers.

National and international guidelines recommend referring patients with severe forms of endometriosis to expert centers. However, there is a lack of clear criteria to define an expert center. We examined the roles of surgeon and hospital procedure volumes as determinants of morbidity in deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum and sigmoid colon (DIERS). METHODS: We conducted a French retrospective multicenter study of hospital facilities performing colorectal surgery for DIERS in 2015. The primary end point was to analyze the relation between case volume and the incidence of complications. We estimated the optimal cut-off (OCO) determined by a minimal p-value approach. RESULTS: The study included 56 hospital facilities and collected data of 1135 cases of surgical management of colorectal endometriosis. The mean and median number of procedures per year and per surgeon were 9.17 and 5.58, respectively. The overall rate of grade III-V complication was 7.6% (82/1135). One grade V complication occurred. The rates of rectovaginal fistula, anastomotic leakage, pelvic abscess, and ureteral fistula were: 2.7% (31/1135), 0.79% (9/1135), 3.4% (39/1135), and 0.70% (8/1135), respectively. An OCO of 20 procedures per center and per year (p < 0.001) was defined. The OCO per surgeon and per year varied between seven (p = 0.007) and 13 procedures (p = 0.03). In a multivariate analysis, we found that only the volume of activity was independently correlated to complication outcomes (p = 0.0013). CONCLUSION: Our results contribute to providing objective morbidity data to determine criteria for defining expert centers for colorectal surgery for endometriosis.

Evaluation of minimum volume standards for surgery in the Netherlands (2003-2017): A successful policy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the introduction and implications of minimum volume standards for surgery in Dutch health care from 2003 to 2017 and formulate policy lessons for other countries. SETTING: Dutch health care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three eras were identified, representing a trust-and-control cycle in keeping with changing roles of different stakeholders in Dutch context. In the first era 'regulated trust' (2003-2009), the Dutch Inspectorate introduced national volume criteria and relied on yearly hospital reported data for information on compliance. In the second era 'contract and control' (2009-2017), the effects of market-oriented reform became more evident. The Dutch government intervened in the market and health insurers introduced selective contracting. Medical professionals were prompted to reclaim the initiative. In the current era (2017-), a return of trust in self-regulation seems visible. The number of low-volume hospitals performing complex surgeries in the Netherlands has decreased and research has shown improved outcomes as a result. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the Dutch experience, the following lessons can be useful for other health care systems: 1. professionals should be in the lead in the development of national quality standards, 2. external pressure can be helpful for professionals to take the initiative and 3. volume remains a controversial quality measure. Future research and policies should focus on the underlying mechanism of volume-outcome relationships and overall effects of volume-based policies.

The Theory and Practice of Pancreatic Surgery in France.

OBJECTIVE: Measure the caseload of pancreatectomies that influences their short-term outcome, at a national level, and assess the applicability of a centralization policy. BACKGROUND: There is agreement that pancreatectomies should be centralized. However, previous studies have failed to accurately define a "high-volume" center. METHODS: French healthcare databases were screened to identify all adult patients who had elective pancreatectomies between 2007 and 2012. The patients' age, comorbidities, indication, and extent of surgery, and also the hospital administrative-type and location were retrieved. The annual-caseload of pancreatectomy was calculated for each hospital facility. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Spline modeling was used to identify the different annual-caseload that influenced mortality. Logistic regressions were performed to assess if their influence was independent of confounders, and the accuracy of the model calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 22,366 patients underwent a pancreatectomy and the mortality was 8.1%. Two cut-offs were identified (25 and 65 per year): compared with centers performing >65 resections per year, the adjusted OR of mortality was 1.865 (1.529-2.276) in centers performing ≤25 resections per year and 1.234 (1.031-1.478) in those performing 26 to 65 resections per year. The average number of facilities performing ≤25, 26 to 65, and >65 pancreatectomies per year was 456, 20, and 9, respectively. The percentage of patients operated in these facilities was 56.6%, 19.9%, and 23.3%, respectively.For pancreaticoduodenectomies (12,670 patients; mortality 9.2%), there were 2 cut-offs (16 and 40 pancreaticoduodenectomies per year), and both were independent predictors of mortality (adjusted OR of 1.979 and 1.333). For distal pancreatectomies (7085 patients; 6.2% mortality), there were 2 cut-offs (13 and 25 distal pancreatectomies per year), but neither was an independent predictor of outcome (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of the model = 0.778). CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of pancreatic surgery is theoretically justified, but currently unrealizable. As the incidence of pancreatic cancer increases, there is an urgent need to improve the training of surgeons and develop both intermediate and high-volume centers.

Understanding the relationship between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare star rating, surgical case volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. METHODS: National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes. RESULTS: This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P < .001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Surgical Site Infections: Volume-Outcome Relationship and Year-to-Year Stability of Performance Rankings.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) rates are publicly reported as quality metrics and increasingly used to determine financial reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the volume-outcome relationship as well as the year-to-year stability of performance rankings following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and hip arthroplasty. RESEARCH DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CABG surgery or hip arthroplasty at US hospitals from 2005 to 2011, with outcomes analyzed through March 2012. Nationally validated claims-based surveillance methods were used to assess for SSI within 90 days of surgery. The relationship between procedure volume and SSI rate was assessed using logistic regression and generalized additive modeling. Year-to-year stability of SSI rates was evaluated using logistic regression to assess hospitals' movement in and out of performance rankings linked to financial penalties. RESULTS: Case-mix adjusted SSI risk based on claims was highest in hospitals performing <50 CABG/year and <200 hip arthroplasty/year compared with hospitals performing ≥200 procedures/year. At that same time, hospitals in the worst quartile in a given year based on claims had a low probability of remaining in that quartile the following year. This probability increased with volume, and when using 2 years' experience, but the highest probabilities were only 0.59 for CABG (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.66) and 0.48 for hip arthroplasty (95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Aggregate SSI risk is highest in hospitals with low annual procedure volumes, yet these hospitals are currently excluded from quality reporting. Even for higher volume hospitals, year-to-year random variation makes past experience an unreliable estimator of current performance.

Peri- and postoperative management of stage I-III Non Small Cell Lung Cancer: Which quality of care indicators are evidence-based?

Quality of care (QoC) has a central role in our health care system. The aim of this review is to present a set of evidence-based quality indicators for the surgical treatment and postoperative management of lung cancer. A search was performed through PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library database, including English literature, published between 1980 and 2012. Search terms regarding 'lung neoplasms', 'surgical treatment' and 'quality of care' were used. Potential QoC indicators were divided into structure, process or outcome measures and a final selection was made based upon the level of evidence. High hospital volume and surgery performed by a thoracic surgeon, were identified as important structure indicators. Sleeve resection instead of pneumonectomy and the importance of treatment within a clinical care path setting were identified as evidence-based process indicators. A symptom-based follow-up regime was identified as a new QoC indicator. These indicators can be used for registration, benchmarking and ultimately quality improvement in lung cancer surgery.

Variation in Hospital-Specific Rates of Suboptimal Lymphadenectomy and Survival in Colon Cancer: Evidence from the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about between-hospital differences in the rate of suboptimal lymphadenectomy. This study characterizes variation in hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy and its effect on overall survival in a national hospital-based registry. METHODS: Stage I-III colon cancer patients were identified from the 2003-2012 National Cancer Data Base. Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models were used to assess the impact of patient- and hospital-level factors on hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy (<12 lymph nodes), and multilevel Cox models were used to estimate the effect of suboptimal lymphadenectomy at the patient (yes vs. no) and hospital level (quartiles of hospital-specific rates) on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 360,846 patients across 1345 hospitals in the US met the inclusion criteria, of which 25 % had a suboptimal lymphadenectomy. Wide variation was observed in hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy (range 0-82 %, median 44 %). Older age, male sex, comorbidity score, no insurance, positive margins, lower tumor grade, lower T and N stage, and sigmoid and left colectomy were associated with higher odds of suboptimal lymphadenectomy. Patients treated at lower-volume and non-academic hospitals had higher odds of suboptimal lymphadenectomy. Patient- and hospital-level factors explained 5 % of the between-hospital variability in suboptimal lymphadenectomy, leaving 95 % unexplained. Higher suboptimal lymphadenectomy rates were associated with worse survival (quartile 4 vs. quartile 1: hazard ratio 1.19, 95 % confidence interval 1.16-1.22). CONCLUSION: Large differences in hospital-specific rates of suboptimal lymphadenectomy were observed, and this variation was associated with survival. Quality improvement initiatives targeting hospital-level adherence to the national standard may improve overall survival among resected colon cancer patients.

Hospital-Level Factors Associated with Anesthesia-Related Adverse Events in Cesarean Deliveries, New York State, 2009-2011.

BACKGROUND: Marked variation across hospitals in adverse maternal outcomes in cesarean deliveries is reported, including anesthesia-related adverse events (ARAEs). Identification of hospital-level characteristics accounting for this variation may help guide interventions to improve anesthesia care quality. In this study, we examined the association between hospital-level characteristics and ARAEs in cesarean deliveries and assessed individual hospital performance. METHODS: Discharge records for cesarean deliveries, ARAEs, and patient characteristics in the State Inpatient Database for New York State 2009 to 2011 were identified with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The hospital reporting index was calculated as the sum of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes divided by the number of discharges. Data on hospital characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association and the Area Health Resources files. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the association of hospital-level characteristics with ARAEs and to assess individual hospital performance. RESULTS: The study included 236,960 discharges indicating cesarean deliveries in 141 hospitals; 1557 discharges recorded at least 1 ARAE (6.6 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2-6.9). The following factors were associated with a significantly increased risk of ARAEs: Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.2), multiple gestation (aOR, 1.3), postpartum hemorrhage (aOR, 1.5), general anesthesia (aOR, 1.3), hospital annual cesarean delivery volume <200 (aOR, 2.3), and reporting index (aOR, 1.1 per 1 increase per discharge). Fifteen percent of the between-hospital variation in ARAEs was explained by the hospital annual cesarean delivery volume and 6% by the reporting index. Eight hospitals (6%) were classified as good-performing, 104 (74%) as average-performing, and 29 (21%) as bad-performing hospitals. Compared with good-performing hospitals, a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) and 5.9-fold (95% CI, 4.5-7.8) increase in the rate of ARAEs was observed in average- and bad-performing hospitals, respectively. Bringing up bad-performing hospitals to the level of average-performing hospitals would prevent 466 ARAEs (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Low cesarean delivery volume is the strongest hospital-level predictor of ARAEs in cesarean deliveries and the main determinant of between-hospital variation. Future study to identify other factors and interventions to improve performance in bad-performing hospitals is warranted.

Regional Variations in the Public Delivery of Bariatric Surgery: An Evaluation of the Center of Excellence Model.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated regional access to bariatric surgery within the high-volume, center of excellence (COE) model of Ontario, Canada. BACKGROUND: In 2009, Ontario implemented Canada's first regionalized bariatric surgical care system based on a COE. Because of this, a small number of COEs service a large population and geographic area. METHODS: This study identified all patients older than 18 years, who received bariatric surgery from April 2009 to March 2012. Morbid obesity-adjusted rates of surgery were then calculated for each neighborhood, and a cluster analysis was performed to determine aggregation of neighborhoods with significantly higher (hot spots) or lower (cold spots) rates of surgery. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of neighborhood access. RESULTS: The cluster analysis identified 49 cold spot neighborhoods, representing 1.7 million people. Forty of these neighborhoods lie within a relatively small area that contains 3 of the 4 COEs. In the multivariate analysis, for every 100 km from the nearest COE, neighborhoods were 0.88 times as likely to live in a hot spot [95% CI (confidence interval): 0.80-0.97; P = 0.012]. In addition, having a bariatric facility within the same administrative health region as the neighborhood made it almost twice as likely to be a hot spot, odds ratio = 1.75 (95% CI: 1.10-2.79; P = 0.018). Low neighborhood socioeconomic status was not associated with decreased delivery of care. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified an unequal delivery of bariatric surgery within Ontario. Both longer distances and not having a bariatric facility within the same health region had significant negative effects. Further research into patient attitudes and referral patterns is required to better characterize these disparities.

Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Endometrial Cancer Care: A Quality and Cost Disparity.

OBJECTIVE: To describe case mix-adjusted hospital level utilization of minimally invasive surgery for hysterectomy in the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the proportion of patients who had a minimally invasive compared with open hysterectomy for nonmetastatic endometrial cancer using the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, 2007-2011. Hospitals were stratified by endometrial cancer case volumes (low=less than 10; medium=11-30; high=greater than 30 cases). Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to evaluate hospital and patient variables associated with minimally invasive utilization, complications, and costs. RESULTS: Overall, 32,560 patients were identified; 33.6% underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy with an increase of 22.0-50.8% from 2007 to 2011. Low-volume cancer centers demonstrated the lowest minimally invasive utilization rate (23.6%; P<.001). After multivariable adjustment, minimally invasive surgery was less likely to be performed in patients with Medicaid compared with private insurance (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.72), black and Hispanic compared with white patients (adjusted OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.46 for black and 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82 for white patients), and more likely to be performed in high- compared with low-volume hospitals (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 2.15-8.27). Open hysterectomy was associated with a higher risk of surgical site infection (adjusted OR 6.21, 95% CI 5.11-7.54) and venous thromboembolism (adjusted OR 3.65, 95% CI 3.12-4.27). Surgical cases with complications had higher mean hospitalization costs for all hysterectomy procedure types (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Hospital utilization of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of endometrial cancer varies considerably in the United States, representing a disparity in the quality and cost of surgical care delivered nationwide.