Estimates of the effects of centralization policy for surgery in Japan: does centralization affect the quality of healthcare for esophagectomies?

PURPOSE: This study compared the quality of healthcare before and after implementation of a policy restructuring the healthcare delivery system and estimated the impact of centralization. METHODS: We used the National Clinical Database to study patients undergoing esophagectomies from 2011 to 2016. We compared the effect of centralization based on the patient background, surgical mortality, and year of surgery. Difference-in-difference methods based on the generalized estimating equation logistic regression model were used for before-and-after comparisons after adjusting for patient-level expected surgical mortality. RESULTS: In total, 34,640 cases were identified. More cases with risk factors were noted in ultra-low-volume hospitals, where 38.4% of cases in underpopulated areas were treated, than in higher volume facilities, and the operative mortality, readmission within 30 days and length of stay were worse among patients treated in these hospitals. In centralized prefectures, the number of cases per hospital increased over time (7.2 in 2011 to 9.5 in 2016) while the crude operative mortality tended to decrease (3.4% in 2011 to 1.8% in 2016). The difference-in-difference estimator was 0.856 (95% confidence interval: 0.639-1.147, p = 0.298). CONCLUSION: The centralization of ultra-low-volume hospitals did not lead to a deterioration in the quality of care but rather an improving trend.

Modelling centralization of pancreatic surgery in a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of centralization of pancreatic surgery have been documented, but policy differs between countries. This study aimed to model various centralization criteria for their effect on a nationwide cohort. METHODS: Data on all pancreatic resections performed between 2014 and 2016 were obtained from the Italian Ministry of Health. Mortality was assessed for different hospital volume categories and for each individual facility. Observed mortality and risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) were calculated. Various models of centralization were tested by applying volume criteria alone or in combination with mortality thresholds. RESULTS: A total of 395 hospitals performed 12 662 resections; 305 hospitals were in the very low-volume category (mean 2·6 resections per year). The nationwide mortality rate was 6·2 per cent, increasing progressively from 3·1 per cent in very high-volume to 10·6 per cent in very low-volume hospitals. For the purposes of centralization, applying a minimum volume threshold of at least ten resections per year would lead to selection of 92 facilities, with an overall mortality rate of 5·3 per cent. However, the mortality rate would exceed 5 per cent in 48 hospitals and be greater than 10 per cent in 17. If the minimum volume were 25 resections per year, the overall mortality rate would be 4·7 per cent in 38 facilities, but still over 5 per cent in 17 centres and more than 10 per cent in five. The combination of a volume requirement (at least 10 resections per year) with a mortality threshold (maximum RSMR 5 or 10 per cent) would allow exclusion of facilities with unacceptable results, yielding a lower overall mortality rate (2·7 per cent in 45 hospitals or 4·2 per cent in 76 respectively). CONCLUSION: The best performance model for centralization involved a threshold for volume combined with a mortality threshold.

ANTECEDENTES: Los beneficios de la centralización de la cirugía pancreática están bien documentados, pero la política de actuación difiere entre los países. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar modelos de centralización basados en varios criterios y analizar su aplicación en una cohorte nacional. MÉTODOS: Los datos de todas las resecciones pancreáticas realizadas entre 2014 y 2016 se obtuvieron del Ministerio de Salud italiano. La mortalidad se evaluó para diferentes categorías del volumen hospitalario y para cada centro individualmente. Se calculó la mortalidad observada y la tasa estandarizada de riesgo de mortalidad (risk standardized mortality rate, RSMR). Se analizaron varios modelos de centralización aplicando criterios de volumen solos o en combinación con umbrales de mortalidad. RESULTADOS: Un total de 395 hospitales realizaron 12.662 resecciones; 305 de ellos pertenecían a la categoría de muy bajo volumen (media de 2,6 resecciones/año). La mortalidad nacional fue del 6,2%, aumentando progresivamente del 3,1% en los hospitales de muy alto volumen al 10,6% en los hospitales de muy bajo volumen. Para fines de centralización, al aplicar un umbral de volumen mínimo ≥ 10 resecciones/año, se seleccionarían 92 centros, con una mortalidad global del 5,3%. Sin embargo, la mortalidad sería > 5% en 48 hospitales y > 10% en 17 hospitales. Si el volumen mínimo fuera de 25 resecciones/año, la mortalidad global sería del 4,7% en 38 hospitales, pero aún > 5% en 17 centros y > 10% en seis centros. La combinación de un volumen necesario (≥ 10 resecciones/año) con un umbral de mortalidad (RSMR ≤ 5% o ≤ 10%) permitiría excluir hospitales con resultados inaceptables, determinando una mortalidad global más baja (2,7% en 45 hospitales o 4,2% en 76 hospitales, respectivamente). CONCLUSIÓN: El mejor modelo para la centralización de resecciones pancreáticas incluyó un umbral para el volumen hospitalario combinado con un umbral de mortalidad.

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.

Impact of cancer service centralisation on the radical treatment of men with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer: A national cross-sectional analysis in England.

In many countries, specialist cancer services are centralised to improve outcomes. We explored how centralisation affects the radical treatment of high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in the English NHS. 79,085 patients diagnosed with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in England (April 2014 to March 2016) were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Poisson models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) for undergoing radical treatment by whether men were diagnosed at a regional co-ordinating centre ('hub'), for having surgery by the presence of surgical services on-site, and for receiving high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in addition to external beam radiotherapy by its regional availability. Men were equally likely to receive radical treatment, irrespective of whether they were diagnosed in a hub (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.08). Men were more likely to have surgery if they were diagnosed at a hospital with surgical services on site (RR 1.24, 1.10-1.40), and more likely to receive additional HDR-BT if they were diagnosed at a hospital with direct regional access to this service (RR 6.16, 2.94-12.92). Centralisation of specialist cancer services does not affect whether men receive radical treatment, but it does affect treatment modality. Centralisation may have a negative impact on access to specific treatment modalities.

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.

Perinatal legislative policies and health outcomes.

Perinatal epidemiology examines the variation and determinants of pregnancy outcomes from a maternal and neonatal perspective. However, improving public and population health also requires the translation of this evidence base into substantive public policies. Assessing the impact of such public policies requires sufficient data to include potential confounding factors in the analysis, such as coexisting medical conditions and socioeconomic status, and appropriate statistical and epidemiological techniques. This review will explore policies addressing three areas of perinatal medicine-elective deliveries prior to 39 weeks' gestation; perinatal regionalization; and mandatory paid maternity leave policies-to illustrate the challenges when assessing the impact of specific policies at the patient and population level. Data support the use of these policies to improve perinatal health, but with weaker and less certain effect sizes when compared to the initial patient-level studies. Improved data collection and epidemiological techniques will allow for improved assessment of these policies and the identification of potential areas of improvement when translating patient-level studies into public policies.

The effects of centralisation of vascular surgical services in the Bath, Bristol and Weston area on the carotid endarterectomy pathway.

Introduction Patients who experience a transient ischaemic attack are at the highest risk of having a subsequent stroke immediately after their symptoms. A carotid endarterectomy should be performed on symptomatic, surgically suitable patients who present with a greater than 50% North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial stenosis of the internal carotid artery within 2 weeks of their symptoms. This study aimed to determine whether the effectiveness of the carotid endarterectomy pathway has been impacted by the centralisation of vascular surgical services in the Bath, Bristol and Weston area. Materials and Methods From October 2013 to October 2015, critical steps in the patient carotid endarterectomy pathway that vascular surgeons from the Royal United Hospital Bath, Bristol Royal Infirmary and North Bristol NHS Trust input into the Royal College of Surgeons National Vascular Registry were collected. The dates of patient's symptoms, referral, first scan, surgical team review and surgery were analysed. Results Carotid endarterectomy data was collected for 261 patients. Overall, no significant difference in median time (days) from symptom to surgery from precentralisation data compared with post-centralisation data was seen (P = .175), with 65% patients meeting the national target of symptom to surgery in less than 14days. Discussion and Conclusion Centralisation has not significantly impacted the overall efficiency of the carotid endarterectomy pathway. This study highlights areas where improvement across the vascular network is required. This includes addressing the 35% patients that are not currently meeting the 14-day target and standardising the provision of care to outlying communities. Further follow-up is required to assess the longer term effects of centralisation.

[Economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery : Centralization is essential]. / Ökonomische Aspekte der onkologischen Ösophaguschirurgie : Zentralisierung ist essenziell.

The incidence of esophageal carcinoma has increased in recent years in Germany. The aim of this article is a discussion of the economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery within the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system focusing on the association between minimum caseload requirements and outcome quality as well as costs. The margins for the DRG classification G03A are low and quickly exhausted if complications determine the postoperative course. A current study using nationwide German hospital discharge data proved a significant difference in hospital mortality between clinics with and without achieving the minimum caseload requirements for esophagectomy. Data from the USA clearly showed that besides patient-relevant parameters, the caseload of a surgeon is relevant for the cost of treatment. Such cost-related analyses do not exist in Germany at present. Scientific validation of reliable minimum caseload numbers for oncological esophagectomy is desirable in the future.

Introduction of positron emission tomography into the Western Norwegian Health Region: Regional balance in resource utilization from 2009 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare resource utilization across the four health trusts within the Western Norway Regional Health Authority since the establishment of positron emission tomography (PET) at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen in 2009. METHODS: Metadata from all PET examinations from 2009 to 2014 were automatically imported from the PET centre's central production database into a custom-developed database system, MDCake. A PET examination was defined as a procedure based on a single injection of radioactive tracer. The patients' place of residence and tentative diagnosis were coded based on the available clinical information. RESULTS: The total number of PET examinations increased from 293 in 2009 to 1616 in 2014. The number of PET examinations per year increased across all diagnostic groups, but plateaued for lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer and malignant melanoma since 2013. The number of examinations per capita was evenly distributed between the three northern health trusts with an average of 1260 PET studies per million inhabitants in 2014. However, patients residing in the most southerly health trust received between 44% (2010) and 27% (2014; P<0·001, repeated measures ANOVA) fewer examinations per capita per year. CONCLUSION: Centralized PET in the Western Norwegian health region meets the current clinical demand for patients residing in the three northern health trusts while patients from the most southern health trust receive approximately 30% fewer PET examinations. Access to specialized health care should be monitored routinely in order to identify inequalities in referral patterns and resource utilization.

Improving clinical outcomes through centralization of rectal cancer surgery and clinical audit: a mixed-methods assessment.

BACKGROUND: The aim of centralizing rectal cancer surgery in Catalonia (Spain) was to improve the quality of patient care. We evaluated the impact of this policy by assessing patterns of care, comparing the clinical audits carried out and analysing the implications of the healthcare reform from an organizational perspective. METHODS: A mixed methods approach based on a convergent parallel design was used. Quality of rectal cancer care was assessed by means of a clinical audit for all patients receiving radical surgery for rectal cancer in two time periods (2005-2007 and 2011-2012). The qualitative study consisted of 18 semi-structured interviews in September-December 2014, with healthcare professionals, managers and experts. RESULTS: From 2005-2007 to 2011-2012, hospitals performing rectal cancer surgery decreased from 51 to 32. The proportion of patients undergoing surgery in high volume centres increased from 37.5% to 52.8%. Improved report of total mesorectal excision (36.2 vs. 85.7), less emergency surgery (5.6% vs. 3.6%) and more lymph node examinations (median: 14.1 vs. 16) were observed (P < 0.001). However, centralizing highly complex cancers using different critical masses and healthcare frameworks prompted the need for rearticulating partnerships at a hospital, rather than disease, level. CONCLUSION: The centralization of rectal cancer surgery has been associated with better quality of care and conformity with clinical guidelines. However, a more integrated model of care delivery is needed to strengthen the centralization strategy.

Bariatric Centers of Excellence: Effect of Centralization on Access to Care.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services restricted coverage for bariatric procedures to designated high-volume Centers of Excellence. The effect of centralization of elective surgical procedures on the ability of patients to access surgery has not been studied previously. STUDY DESIGN: Inpatient claims data from 2008 to 2011 from 2 high-volume surgical states were used. All patients older than 18 years undergoing a bariatric surgical procedure were included. The number of bariatric procedures and characteristics of patients undergoing bariatric surgery were examined in each year. Nonparametric tests for trend were performed to analyze time trends. Difference-in-difference analyses were performed to assess the rate of bariatric surgery in underserved Medicare patients compared with underserved patients with other payers. RESULTS: The percentage of procedures performed at Centers of Excellence increased from 60.5% in 2008 to 73.1% in 2011 (p < 0.01). The proportion of Medicare patients receiving surgery at a Center of Excellence increased from 77.7% in 2008 to 88.1% in 2011 (p < 0.01). The proportion of bariatric surgery patients from underserved groups increased over time except among those residing in rural areas, for whom there was no change. Among patients from underserved populations, only black Medicare patients experienced an increase in bariatric surgery use when compared with non-Medicare patients. The travel distance for Medicare patients consistently exceeded travel distance for non-Medicare patients. However, travel distance for Medicare patients decreased slightly during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the longer travel distance required for Medicare patients, centralization of bariatric surgery to Centers of Excellence did not result in impaired access to care. In fact, in this study, an improvement in access to bariatric surgery was seen and persisted among some underserved populations.

Provision of vascular surgery in England in 2012.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009 the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland reported its recommendations for The Provision of Vascular Services for Patients with Vascular Disease. The objective is to halve the UK elective surgery mortality rate for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm to 3.5% by 2013. From 16th March 2012, statutory approval has been given by Parliament to recognise Vascular Surgery as a Specialty in the UK. This study assesses the provision of vascular surgery in acute trusts across England. METHOD: From the Department of Health, 169 acute trusts were identified in England and each acute trust was emailed under the Freedom of Information Act. RESULTS: There was a 98.8% response rate. There are currently 80 trusts in England providing acute and elective arterial and aortic surgery, with 48 vascular hubs and 32 trusts which either provide a local on call network or are currently under review. Within the 48 vascular hubs there are a mean of 4.8 consultants and 3.75 middle grades. The on call rota was on average a 1 in 6. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that currently 80 trusts in England provide acute and elective arterial and aortic surgery with 48 centralised complex and arterial vascular services. An integrated vascular service will provide the best quality of care, develop the latest techniques and improve clinical standards.

Trends in regionalization of adrenalectomy to higher volume surgical centers.

PURPOSE: Although centralization of surgical procedures to high volume centers has been described previously, patterns of care for adrenal surgery are largely unknown. We determined the extent of regionalization of care for adrenal surgery and the extent to which this centralization has evolved with time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 1996 to 2009 hospital discharge data from New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania we identified all patients 18 years old or older treated with adrenalectomy. Hospital volume quintiles were created using 1996 hospital volumes. These cutoffs were then applied to subsequent years. Outcome variables were examined by hospital volume status with time using logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 8,381 patients underwent adrenalectomy from 1996 to 2009 with a significant 17% to 42% shift toward regionalization to very high volume hospitals, defined as 15 or greater procedures per year (p <0.001). For each successive year the odds of having surgery performed at a very low volume hospital decreased by 13% (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.84-0.89). There were significant differences in patient age, race and payer group for very low volume hospitals, defined as less than 1 procedure per year, compared to very high volume hospitals (p <0.0001). Patients at very high volume hospitals were less likely to be 55 years old or older (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.88), insured through Medicaid (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.79) or uninsured (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70). When controlling for year treated, patients were less likely to die in the hospital if treated at a very high volume hospital (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: These data reveal the increasing centralization of adrenalectomy to very high volume hospitals since 1996 with improved clinical outcomes. Inequities in access to care to higher volume centers appear to exist and require further investigation.

Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancers - a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Gynaecological cancers are the second most common cancers among women. It has been suggested that centralised care improves outcomes but consensus is lacking. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer, in particular, survival advantage. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010 was conducted. Registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies were included and multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix were used. RESULTS: Five retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis provides evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere.

Centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gynaecological cancers are the second most common cancers among women. It has been suggested that centralised care improves outcomes but consensus is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.

Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality.

BACKGROUND: The impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) on mortality is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyse changes in hospital volumes and in-hospital mortality after PD in the Netherlands between 2004 and 2009. METHODS: Nationwide data on International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) code 5-526 (PD, including Whipple), patient age, sex and mortality were retrieved from the independent nationwide KiwaPrismant registry. Based on established cut-off points of annually performed PDs, hospitals were categorized as very low (fewer than 5), low (5-10), medium (11-19) or high (at least 20) volume. A subgroup analysis based on a cut-off age of 70 years was also performed. RESULTS: Some 2155 PDs were included. The number of hospitals performing PD decreased from 48 in 2004 to 30 in 2009 (P = 0·011). In these specific years, the proportion of patients undergoing PD in a medium- or high-volume centre increased from 52·9 to 91·2 per cent (P < 0·001). Nationwide mortality rates after PD decreased from 9·8 to 5·1 per cent (P = 0·044). The mortality rate during the 6-year period was 14·7, 9·8, 6·3 and 3·3 per cent in very low-, low-, medium- and high-volume hospitals respectively (P < 0·001). The difference in mortality between medium- and high-volume centres was statistically significant (P = 0·004). The volume-outcome relationship was not influenced by age (P = 0·467). The mortality rate after PD in patients aged at least 70 years was 10·4 per cent compared with 4·4 per cent in younger patients (P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: With nationwide centralization of PD, the in-hospital mortality rate after this procedure decreased. Further centralization of PD is likely to decrease mortality further, especially in the elderly.

[Perinatal centres in the state of Baden-Württemberg: effects of minimum volume standards and quality assessments by the Medical Service of Statutory Health Insurance (MDK)]. / Perinatalzentren in Baden-Württemberg: Auswirkungen von Mindestmengen und Qualitätsprüfungen durch den Medizinischen Dienst der Krankenversicherung (MDK).

BACKGROUND: In the year 2009 the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) obliged neonatal units in Germany to publish yearly data on the number of preterm infants treated and their outcome in the internet. At the same time annual minimum volumes were introduced for each level of perinatal care. The exact numbers of compulsory minimum volumes are heavily discussed both scientifically and politically. METHODS: 28 perinatal centres (PNC) in the state of Baden-Württemberg published data on mortality and short-term morbidity of preterm infants with a birth weight (BW) <1,500 g admitted in the year 2008 (n=1,141). These data were analysed on the background of quality assessments of structures and processes in all hospitals performed by the Medical Service of Statutory Health Insurance (MDK). RESULTS: By the end of 2008, 8 PNC had fulfilled the quality criteria of the G-BA nearly completely and reached a numerical benchmarking value of more than 300 of 465 maximally achievable points. Introducing annual minimum volumes of 36 preterm infants with a BW <1,250 g would lead to a concentration of perinatal care in 7 PNC and minimum volumes of 50 preterm infants with a BW <1,500 g per year in 8 such centres. CONCLUSION: Further centralisation of clinical care for low birth-weight preterm infants in a limited number of PNC in the state of Baden-Württemberg would be economically reasonable and could be achieved either by the introduction of higher minimum volume standards or a stringent interpretation of quality criteria of the G-BA. Based on self-reported data of the PNC currently available in the Internet it is not possible to predict the effect of such a centralisation process on patient outcome.

Centralization harnessing volume-outcome relationships in vascular surgery and aortic aneurysm care should not focus solely on threshold operative caseload.

There has been great interest in the setting of threshold operative volumes for safety to guide centralisation of vascular surgical services by healthcare commissioners. This editorial examines the evidence for designing services around a numeric safety threshold in the relationship between volume and outcome in vascular surgery. Thresholds should be aimed at the best outcomes and equity of care. Equity means access to the most up-to-date technology and all the relevant support services for elective and emergency cases. The relationship of volume and outcome with quality is complex, and demands a shift in focus to infrastructural and procedural improvements that drive high-quality services rather than the concentration of planning exclusively around an operative volume threshold.