Simulating the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery services on travel burden and equity in the English National Health Service: A national population based model for health service re-design.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited evidence on the impact of centralization of cancer treatment services on patient travel burden and access to treatment. Using prostate cancer surgery as an example, this national study analysis aims to simulate the effect of different centralization scenarios on the number of center closures, patient travel times, and equity in access. METHODS: We used patient-level data on all men (n = 19,256) undergoing radical prostatectomy in the English National Health Service between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014, and considered three scenarios for centralization of prostate cancer surgery services A: procedure volume, B: availability of specialized services, and C: optimization of capacity. The probability of patients travelling to each of the remaining centers in the choice set was predicted using a conditional logit model, based on preferences revealed through actual hospital selections. Multivariable linear regression analysed the impact on travel time according to patient characteristics. RESULTS: Scenarios A, B, and C resulted in the closure of 28, 24, and 37 of the 65 radical prostatectomy centers, respectively, affecting 3993 (21%), 5763 (30%), and 7896 (41%) of the men in the study. Despite similar numbers of center closures the expected average increase on travel time was very different for scenario B (+15 minutes) and A (+28 minutes). A distance minimization approach, assigning patients to their next nearest center, with patient preferences not considered, estimated a lower impact on travel burden in all scenarios. The additional travel burden on older, sicker, less affluent patients was evident, but where significant, the absolute difference was very small. CONCLUSION: The study provides an innovative simulation approach using national patient-level datasets, patient preferences based on actual hospital selections, and personal characteristics to inform health service planning. With this approach, we demonstrated for prostate cancer surgery that three different centralization scenarios would lead to similar number of center closures but to different increases in patient travel time, whilst all having a minimal impact on equity.

Impact of emergency care centralisation on mortality and efficiency: a retrospective service evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence favours centralisation of emergency care for specific conditions, but it remains unclear whether broader implementation improves outcomes and efficiency. Routine healthcare data examined consolidation of three district general hospitals with mixed medical admission units (MAU) into a single high-volume site directing patients from the ED to specialty wards with consultant presence from 08:00 to 20:00. METHODS: Consecutive unscheduled adult index admissions from matching postcode areas were identified retrospectively in Hospital Episode Statistics over a 3-year period: precentralisation baseline (from 16 June 2014 to 15 June 2015; n=18 586), year 1 postcentralisation (from 16 June 2015 to 15 June 2016; n=16 126) and year 2 postcentralisation (from 16 June 2016 to 15 June 2017; n=17 727). Logistic regression including key demographic covariates compared baseline with year 1 and year 2 probabilities of mortality and daily discharge until day 60 after admission and readmission within 60 days of discharge. RESULTS: Relative to baseline, admission postcentralisation was associated with favourable OR (95% CI) for day 60 mortality (year 1: 0.95 (0.88 to 1.02), p=0.18; year 2: 0.94 (0.91 to 0.97), p<0.01), mainly among patients aged 80+ years (year 1: 0.88 (0.79 to 0.97); year 2: 0.91 (0.87 to 0.96)). The probability of being discharged alive on any day since admission increased (year 1: 1.07 (1.04 to 1.10), p<0.01; year 2: 1.04 (1.02 to 1.05), p<0.01) and the risk of readmission decreased (year 1: 0.90 (0.87 to 0.94), p<0.01; year 2: 0.92 (0.90 to 0.94), p<0.01). CONCLUSION: A centralised site providing early specialist care was associated with improved short-term outcomes and efficiency relative to lower volume ED admitting to MAU, particularly for older patients.

Standardizing the treatment of oesophagogastric junction tumours: Centralization, registries and surgical training. / Proyectos de estandarización del tratamiento del cáncer de la unión esofagogástrica: centralización, registros y formación.

Surgical treatment of oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas is based on total gastrectomies or oesophagectomies, which are complex procedures with potentially high morbidity and mortality. Population-based registers show a considerable variability of protocols and outcomes among different hospitals and regions. One of the main strategies to improve global results is centralization at high-volume hospitals, a process that should take into account the benchmarking of processes and outcomes at referral hospitals. Minimally invasive surgery can improve postoperative morbidity while maintaining oncological guaranties, but is technically more demanding than open surgery. This fact underlines the need for structured training and mentorship programs that minimize the impact of surgical teams' training curves without affecting morbidity, mortality or oncologic radicality.

Trends in centralization of surgical care and compliance with National Cancer Center Network guidelines for resected cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A retrospective study was performed to characterize trends in centralization of care and compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for resected cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and their impact on overall survival (OS). METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) 2004-2015 we identified patients undergoing resection for CCA. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses identified time periods and hospital volume groups for comparison. Propensity score matching provided case-mix adjusted patient cohorts. Cox hazard analysis identified risk factors for OS. RESULTS: Among the 40,338 patients undergoing resection for CCA, the proportion of patients undergoing surgery at high volume hospitals increased over time (25%-44%, p < 0.001), while the proportion of patients undergoing surgery at low volume hospitals decreased (30%-15%, p < 0.001). Using ROC analyses, a hospital volume of 14 operations/year was the most sensitive and specific value associated with mortality. Surgery at high volume hospitals [HR] = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88-0.97, p < 0.001) and receipt of care compliant with NCCN guidelines (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.91, p < 0.001) were independently associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: Both centralization of surgery for CCA to high volume hospitals and increased compliance with NCCN guidelines were associated with significant improvements in overall survival.

The impact of centralization of services on treatment delay in ovarian cancer: A study on process quality.

OBJECTIVE: Emphasis on improving healthcare quality has led to centralization of services for patients suspected of ovarian cancer. As centralization of services may induce treatment delays, we aimed to assess compliance with health system interval guidelines in patients suspected of ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Evaluation of health system intervals, comparison between direct and indirect referrals and between 2013 and 2014. SETTING: A managed clinical network (MCN) comprising 11 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients that were treated for ovarian cancer within the University Medical Center Groningen in 2013 and 2014. INTERVENTION: Introduction of an MCN to centralize services for patients suspected of ovarian cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Compliance with national guidelines regarding health system intervals. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2014 a clinically relevant improvement in compliance with guidelines was demonstrated. Within this period, median treatment intervals decreased from 34 to 29 days, and the percentage of patients in which treatment interval guidelines were met increased from 63.5 to 72.2%. New regulations and increased awareness of health system intervals inspired changes in local practice leading to improved compliance with guidelines. Compliance was highest in patients that were directly referred to our academic hospital. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of health system intervals in patients suspected of ovarian cancer was feasible and may be applicable to other MCNs. Though compliance with guidelines improved within the study period, there is potential for improvement. To facilitate real-time evaluation of compliance with national guidelines establishing uniformity of electronic patient files in the MCN is deemed essential.

Changes in treatment and outcome of oesophageal cancer in Denmark between 2004 and 2013.

BACKGROUND: Since 2003, care for patients with oesophageal cancer has been centralized in a few dedicated centres in Denmark. The aim of this study was to assess changes in the treatment and outcome of patients registered in a nationwide database. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer or cancer of the gastro-oesophageal junction who underwent oesophagectomy in Denmark between 2004 and 2013, and who were registered in the Danish clinical database of carcinomas in the oesophagus, gastro-oesophageal junction and stomach (DECV database) were included. Quality-of-care indicators, including number of lymph nodes removed, anastomotic leak rate, 30- and 90-day mortality, and 2- and 5-year overall survival, were assessed. To compare quality-of-care indicators over time, the relative risk (RR) was calculated using a multivariable log binomial regression model. RESULTS: Some 6178 patients were included, of whom 1728 underwent oesophagectomy. The overall number of patients with 15 or more lymph nodes in the resection specimen increased from 38·1 per cent in 2004 to 88·7 per cent in 2013. The anastomotic leak rate decreased from 14·8 to 7·6 per cent (RR 0·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·43 to 1·01). The 30-day mortality rate decreased from 4·5 to 1·7 per cent (RR 0·51, 0·22 to 1·15) and the 90-day mortality rate from 11·0 to 2·9 per cent (RR 0·46, 0·26 to 0·82). There were no statistically significant changes in 2- or 5-year survival rates over time. CONCLUSION: Indicators of quality of care have improved since the centralization of oesophageal cancer treatment in Denmark.

Patient perspectives on centralisation of low volume, highly specialised procedures in Sweden.

This study explores important considerations from a patient perspective in decisions regarding centralisation of specialised health care services. The analysis is performed in the framework of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare's ongoing work to evaluate and, if appropriate, centralise low volume, highly specialised, health services defined as National Specialised Medical Care. In addition to a literature review, a survey directed to members of patient associations and semi-structured interviews with patient association representatives and health care decision makers were conducted. The results showed that from a patient perspective, quality of care in terms of treatment outcomes is the most important factor in decisions regarding centralisation of low volume, highly specialised health care. The study also indicates that additional factors such as continuity of treatment and a well-functioning care pathway are highly important for patients. However, some of these factors may be dependent on the implementation process and predicting how they will evolve in case of centralisation will be difficult. Patient engagement and patient association involvement in the centralisation process is likely to be a key component in attaining patient focused care and ensuring patient satisfaction with the centralisation decisions.

Delivery system characteristics and their association with quality and costs of care: implications for accountable care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of accountable care organizations (ACOs) is currently underway, but there is limited empirical evidence on the merits of the ACO model. PURPOSE: The aim was to study the associations between delivery system characteristics and ACO competencies, including centralization strategies to manage organizations, hospital integration with physicians and outpatient facilities, health information technology, infrastructure to monitor community health and report quality, and risk-adjusted 30-day all-cause mortality and case-mixed-adjusted inpatient costs for the Medicare population. METHODOLOGY: Panel data (2006-2009) were assembled from Florida and multiple sources: inpatient hospital discharge, vital statistics, the American Hospital Association, the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, and other databases. We applied a panel study design, controlling for hospital and market characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Hospitals that were in centralized health systems or became more centralized over the study period had significantly larger reductions in mortality compared with hospitals that remained freestanding. Surprisingly, tightly integrated hospital-physician arrangements were associated with increased mortality; as such, hospitals may wish to proceed cautiously when developing specific types of alignment with local physician organizations. We observed no statistically significant differences in the growth rate of costs across hospitals in any of the health systems studied relative to freestanding hospitals. Although we observed quality improvement in some organizational types, these outcome improvements were not coupled with the additional desired objective of lower cost growth. This implies that additional changes not present during our study period, potentially changes in provider payment approaches, are essential for achieving the ACO objectives of higher quality of care at lower costs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Provider organizations implementing ACOs should consider centralizing service delivery as a viable strategy to improve quality of care, although the strategy did not result in lower cost growth.

[Patient with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm better off with centralized care]. / Patiënt met ruptuur aneurysma aortae abdominalis beter af met centralisatie van zorg.

Current debate on complex medical care in the Netherlands includes the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). Topics of interest are hospital volume, patient selection and the use of minimally invasive but more expensive techniques. Based on two recent randomized trials investigating open and endovascular repair for RAAA, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of techniques, quality of life and age. We conclude that optimal treatment can only be provided in a vascular centre with 24/7 availability of both open and endovascular repair, a top level intensive care unit and a demonstrable low decline rate for surgery. Age should be abandoned as an eligibility criterion for surgery.

Service provision for liver disease in the UK: a national questionnaire-based survey.

The National Plan for Liver Services in 2009 called for a review of current liver services across the UK to identify areas of good and poor provision. We present the results of a national questionnaire survey of liver services, which focussed on staffing and training, access to key facilities and clinical management of liver disease. Areas of good practice include the increased proportion of consultants who trained at a liver centre, the introduction of specific liver clinics and the widespread use of terlipressin and antibiotics for variceal bleeding. Areas of poor practice include limited access to alcohol psychiatry services and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) and limited recording of outcome measures or patient databases. Wide variation in the clinical management of serious liver diseases supports the need for managed clinical networks. These results will help to guide the development of standards of care for liver services across the UK.

[Centralising cancer treatment: a good idea]. / Centraliseren van kankerzorg: goed plan.

The complexity of diagnosis and treatment for common cancers is rapidly increasing due to multimodality treatment options, advanced imaging, molecular pathology and 'personalized medicine'. To achieve the best chances for cure, treatment centres need to invest in highly trained personnel, including all the necessary diagnostic and therapeutic subspecialists, and in high-tech facilities. In the Netherlands, many patients receive care in community hospitals that lack key members of a treatment team (e.g. the radiotherapist). Such teams may depend on weekly or biweekly cancer conferences with external experts to arrive at patient-management decisions. It is recommended that such hospitals either upgrade their teams and facilities or refer their patients to a hospital that has an established cancer centre.

[Centralising cancer treatment: there are better ways]. / Centraliseren van kankerzorg: er zijn betere oplossingen.

The Netherlands is strongly leaning towards treating cancer patients at a limited number of hospitals. This approach has been poorly investigated and there is little evidence that the quality of care and the outcome of treatment in the Dutch system are related to the size of the institute. Oncological care is getting more and more complicated and requires a certain scale, but the formation of networks offers more possibilities than centralisation. Technical developments may offer alternatives to centralisation. In addition, care given closer to home to an increasingly older patient population is very valuable. Comorbidity is another reason to provide care at a general hospital in close cooperation with general practitioners. Strong ties with a university clinic is an important requirement for such a network to work well.

The impact of provider surgical volumes on survival in children with primary tumors of the central nervous system--a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Provider volume is often a central topic in debates about centralization of procedures. In Norway, there is considerable variation in provider volumes of the neurosurgical centers treating children. We sought to explore long-term survival after surgery for central nervous system tumors in children in relation to regional provider volumes. METHOD: Based on data from the Norwegian Cancer Registry we analyzed survival in all reported central nervous system tumors in children under the age of 16 treated over two decades, between March 1988 and April 2008; a total of 816 patients with histologically confirmed disease. RESULTS: There was no overall difference in survival between regions. In the subgroup of PNET/medulloblastomas, both living in the high-provider volume health region and receiving treatment in the high-volume region was significantly associated with inferior survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study of children operated over a period of two decades, we found no evidence of improved long-term survival in the high-provider volume region. Surprisingly, a subgroup analysis indicated that survival in PNET/medulloblastomas was significantly better if living outside the most populated health region with the highest provider volumes. One should, however, be careful of interpreting this directly as a symptom of quality of care, as there may be unseen confounders. Our study demonstrates that provider case volume may serve as an axiom in debates about centralization of cancer surgery while perhaps much more reliable and valid but less quantifiable factors are important for the final results.