Evaluation of Access to Hospitals Most Ready to Achieve National Accreditation for Rectal Cancer Treatment.

Importance: The American College of Surgeons National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) promotes multidisciplinary care to improve oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer. However, accreditation requirements may be difficult to achieve for the lowest-performing institutions. Thus, it is unknown whether the NAPRC will motivate care improvement in these settings or widen disparities. Objectives: To characterize hospitals' readiness for accreditation and identify differences in the patients cared for in hospitals most and least prepared for accreditation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 1315 American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015, were sorted into 4 cohorts, organized by high vs low volume and adherence to process standards, and patient and hospital characteristics and oncologic outcomes were compared. The patients included those who underwent surgical resection with curative intent for rectal adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, or signet ring cell carcinoma. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to January 2018. Exposures: Hospitals' readiness for accreditation, as determined by their annual resection volume and adherence to 5 available NAPRC process standards. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital characteristics, patient sociodemographic characteristics, and 5-year survival by hospital. Results: Among the 1315 included hospitals, 38 (2.9%) met proposed thresholds for all 5 NAPRC process standards and 220 (16.7%) met the threshold on 4 standards. High-volume hospitals (≥20 resections per year) tended to be academic institutions (67 of 104 [64.4%] vs 159 of 1211 [13.1%]; P = .001), whereas low-volume hospitals (<20 resections per year) tended to be comprehensive community cancer programs (530 of 1211 [43.8%] vs 28 of 104 [26.9%]; P = .001). Patients in low-volume hospitals were more likely to be older (11 429 of 28 076 [40.7%] vs 4339 of 12 148 [35.7%]; P < .001) and have public insurance (13 054 of 28 076 [46.5%] vs 4905 of 12 148 [40.4%]; P < .001). Low-adherence hospitals were more likely to care for black and Hispanic patients (1980 of 19 577 [17.2%] vs 3554 of 20 647 [10.1%]; P < .001). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards model regression, high-volume hospitals had better 5-year survival outcomes than low-volume hospitals (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P < .001), but there was no significant survival difference by hospital process standard adherence. Conclusions and Relevance: Hospitals least likely to receive NAPRC accreditation tended to be community institutions with worse survival outcomes, serving patients at a lower socioeconomic position. To possibly avoid exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality rectal cancer care, the NAPRC study findings suggest enabling access for patients with socioeconomic disadvantage or engaging in quality improvement for hospitals not yet achieving accreditation benchmarks.

The Association between Mortality and Distance to Treatment Facility in Patients with Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Regionalization of bladder cancer treatment is suggested to improve quality of care. As an unintended consequence some patients travel farther for care with unknown implications on outcomes. We characterized the relationship between distance and overall mortality in patients with invasive bladder cancer and those who underwent radical cystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using NCDB (National Cancer Database) from 2004 to 2012 to identify patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (cT2a-T4 N0 M0). We also extracted a subgroup of patients who underwent radical cystectomy. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed in each group, controlling for demographic, clinical, hospital and geographic factors. RESULTS: For 34,729 patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer traveling farther for treatment was associated with a lower probability of overall mortality (referent less than 12.5 miles, 12.5 to 49.9 miles HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99 and 50 to 249.9 miles HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96). This was significant for patients with cT2 disease and those treated at academic centers (p ≤0.05). For 11,059 patients who underwent radical cystectomy this trend did not reach significance. However, longer distance was associated with surgery at a high volume institution and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (each p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who traveled farther for bladder cancer treatment did not experience inferior survival outcomes and traveling to academic institutions was associated with reduced mortality. For patients who undergo cystectomy this relationship was equivocal, although longer distance was associated with receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery at a high volume facility. These findings may reflect a complex association of regionalization of bladder cancer care with patient individual health and health care seeking behavior.

Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data. / Volumi di attività ed esiti delle cure: prove scientifiche in letteratura ed evidenze empiriche in Italia.

BACKGROUND Improving quality and effectiveness of healthcare is one of the priorities of health policies. Hospital or physician volume represents a measurable variable with an impact on effectiveness of healthcare. An Italian law calls for the definition of «qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care¼. There is a need for an evaluation of the available scientific evidence in order to identify qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care, including the volume of care above or below which the public and private hospitals may be accredited (or not) to provide specific healthcare interventions. OBJECTIVES To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been investigated. To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been proved. To analyze the distribution of Italian health providers by volume of activity. To measure the association between volume of care and outcomes of the health providers of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS Systematic review An overview of systematic reviews was performed searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to November 2016. Studies were evaluated by 2 researchers independently; quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR checklist. For each health condition and outcome, if available, total number of studies, participants, high volume cut-off values, and metanalysis have been reported. According to the considered outcomes, health topics were classified into 3 groups: positive association: a positive association was demonstrated in the majority of studies/participants and/or a pooled measure (metanalysis) with positive results was reported; lack of association: both studies and/or metanalysis showed no association; no sufficient evidence of association: both results of single studies and metanalysis do not allow to draw firm conclusions on the association between volume and outcome. Analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals by volume of activity and the association between volume of activity and outcomes: the Italian National Outcome evaluation Programme 2016 The analyses were performed using the Hospital Information System and the National Tax Register (year 2015). For each condition, the number of hospitals by volume of activity was calculated. Hospitals with a volume lower than 3-5 cases/year were excluded. For conditions with more than 1,500 cases/year and frequency of outcome ≥1%, the association between volume of care and outcome was analyzed estimating risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS Bibliographic searches identified 80 reviews, evaluating 48 different clinical areas. The main outcome considered was intrahospital/30-day mortality. The other outcomes vary depending on the type of condition or intervention in study. The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes was considered in 47 out of 48 conditions: 34 conditions showed evidence of a positive association; • 14 conditions consider cancer surgery for bladder, breast, colon, rectum, colon rectum, oesophagus, kidney, liver, lung, ovaries, pancreas, prostate, stomach, head and neck; • 11 conditions consider cardiocerebrovascular area: nonruptured and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myocardial infarction, brain aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass, paediatric heart surgery, revascularization of lower limbs, stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage; • 2 conditions consider orthopaedic area: knee arthroplasty, hip fracture; • 7 conditions consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, cholecystectomy, intensive care unit, neonatal intensive care unit, sepsis, and traumas; for 3 conditions, no association was demonstrated: hip arthroplasty, dialysis, and thyroidectomy. for the remaining 10 conditions, the available evidence does not allow to draw firm conclusions about the association between hospital volume and considered outcomes: surgery for testicular cancer and intracranial tumours, paediatric oncology, aortofemoral bypass, cardiac catheterization, appendectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia, respiratory failure, and hysterectomy. The relationship between volume of clinician/surgeon and outcomes was assessed only through the literature re view; to date, it is not possible to analyze this association for Italian health provider hospitals, since information on the clinician/surgeon on the hospital discharge chart is missing. The literature found a positive association for 21 conditions: 9 consider surgery for cancer: bladder, breast, colon, colon rectum, pancreas, prostate, rectum, stomach, and head and neck; 5 consider the cardiocerebrovascular area: ruptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, paediatric heart surgery, and revascularization of the lower limbs; 2 consider the orthopaedic area: knee and hip arthroplasty; 5 consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, hysterectomy, intensive care unit, and thyroidectomy. The analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals concerned the 34 conditions for which the systematic review has shown a positive volume-outcome association. For the following, it was possible to conduct the analysis of the association using national data: unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, coronary angioplasty, hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass, cancer surgery (colon, liver, breast, pancreas, lung, prostate, kidney, and stomach), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hip fracture, stroke, acute myocardial infarction. For these conditions, the association between volume and outcome of care was observed. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy and surgery of the breast and stomach cancer, the association between the volume of the discharge (o dismissal) operating unit and the outcome was analyzed. The outcomes differ depending on the condition studied. The shape of the relationship is variable among different conditions, with heterogeneous slope of the curves. DISCUSSION For many conditions, the overview of systematic reviews has shown a strong evidence of association between higher volumes and better outcomes. The quality of the available reviews can be considered good for the consistency of the results between the studies and for the strength of the association; however, this does not mean that the included studies are of good quality. Analyzing national data, potential confounders, including age and comorbidities, have been considered. The systematic review of the literature does not permit to identify predefined volume thresholds. The analysis of national data shows a strong improvement in outcomes in the first part of the curve (from very low to higher volumes) for most conditions. In some cases, the improvement in outcomes remains gradual or constant with the increasing volume of care; in other, the analysis could allow the identification of threshold values beyond which the outcome does not further improve. However, a good knowledge of the relationship between effectiveness of treatments and costs, the geographical distribution and the accessibility to healthcare services are necessary to choose the minimum volumes of care, under which specific health procedures could not been provided in the NHS. Some potential biases due to the use of information systems data should also be considered. The different way of coding among hospitals could lead to a different selection of cases for some conditions. Regarding the definition of the exposure (volume of care), a possible bias could result from misclassification of health providers with high volume of activity. Performing the intervention in different departments/ units of the same hospital would result in an overestimation of the volume of care measured for hospital rather than for department/unit. For the conditions with a further fragmentation within the same structure, the association between volumes of discharge department and outcomes has also been evaluated. In this case, the two curves were different. The limit is to attribute the outcome to the discharge unit, which in case of surgery may not be the intervention unit. A similar bias could occur if the main determinant of the outcome of treatment was the caseload of each surgeon. The results of the analysis may be biased when different operators in the same hospital/unit carried out the same procedure. In any case, the observed association between volumes and outcome is very strong, and it is unlikely to be attributable to biases of the study design. Another aspect on which there is still little evidence is the interaction between volume of the hospital and of the surgeon. A MEDICARE study suggests that in some conditions, especially for specialized surgery, the effect of the surgeon's volume of activity is different depending on the structure volume, whereas it would not differ for some less specialized surgery conditions. The data here presented still show extremely fragmented volumes of both clinical and surgical areas, with a predominance of very low volume structures. Health systems operate, by definition, in a context of limited resources, especially when the amount of resources to allocate to the health system is reduced. In such conditions, the rationalization of the organization of health services based on the volume of care may make resources available to improve the effectiveness of interventions. The identification and certification of services and providers with high volume of activity can help to reduce differences in the access to non-effective procedures. To produce additional evidence to guide the reorganization of the national healthcare system, it will be necessary to design further primary studies to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of policies aimed at concentrating interventions in structures with high volumes of activity.

Multimodal cancer care in poor prognosis cancers: Resection drives long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitals with high complex oncologic surgical volume have improved short-term outcomes. However, for long-term outcomes, the influence of other therapies must be considered. We compared effects of resection with other therapies on long-term outcomes across U.S. hospitals. METHODS: We examined claims in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset for patients with esophageal (EC) and pancreatic (PC) cancers between 2005-2009, with follow-up through 2011, performing multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. We stratified hospitals by volume and compared rates of treatments in the context of survival. RESULTS: We studied 905 EC and 3,293 PC patients at 138 and 375 hospitals, respectively. For EC, resection rates were significantly higher (32.9% vs. 9.5%, P < 0.001) in the highest versus lowest volume hospitals. Adjusted survival was also statistically significantly better (48.5% vs. 43.1%, P < 0.001). For PC, resection rates were also statistically significantly higher (30.1% vs. 12.0%, P < 0.001) with higher adjusted survival (21.5% vs. 19.9%, P = 0.01). We did not find variation in rates of other cancer treatments across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: A significant association exists between long-term survival and rates of cancer-directed surgery across hospitals, without variation in rates of other therapies. Access to resection appears to be key to reducing variation in long-term survival. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:599-604. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.