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.

Centralising acute stroke care within clinical practice in the Netherlands: lower bounds of the causal impact.

BACKGROUND: Authors in previous studies demonstrated that centralising acute stroke care is associated with an increased chance of timely Intra-Venous Thrombolysis (IVT) and lower costs compared to care at community hospitals. In this study we estimated the lower bound of the causal impact of centralising IVT on health and cost outcomes within clinical practice in the Northern Netherlands. METHODS: We used observational data from 267 and 780 patients in a centralised and decentralised system, respectively. The original dataset was linked to the hospital information systems. Literature on healthcare costs and Quality of Life (QoL) values up to 3 months post-stroke was searched to complete the input. We used Synthetic Control Methods (SCM) to counter selection bias. Differences in SCM outcomes included 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). To deal with unobserved heterogeneity we focused on recently developed methods to obtain the lower bounds of the causal impact. RESULTS: Using SCM to assess centralising acute stroke 3 months post-stroke revealed healthcare savings of $US 1735 (CI, 505 to 2966) while gaining 0.03 (CI, - 0.01 to 0.73) QoL per patient. The corresponding lower bounds of the causal impact are $US 1581 and 0.01. The dominant effect remained stable in the deterministic sensitivity analyses with $US 1360 (CI, 476 to 2244) as the most conservative estimate. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we showed that a centralised system for acute stroke care appeared both cost-saving and yielded better health outcomes. The results are highly relevant for policy makers, as this is the first study to address the issues of selection and unobserved heterogeneity in the evaluation of centralising acute stroke care, hence presenting causal estimates for budget decisions.

Consenso Victoria I: otra perspectiva cara al futuro de los incidentes con múltiples víctimas intencionados / Another perspective on the management of multiple intentional-injury victims in the future: the Victory I Consensus

No disponible

Regionalization of Congenital Heart Surgery in the United States.

The objective of this study is to simulate regionalization of congenital heart surgery (CHS) in the United States and assess the impact of such a system on travel distance and mortality. Patients ≤18 years of age who underwent CHS were identified in 2012 State Inpatient Databases. Operations were stratified by the Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery, version 1 (RACHS-1) method, with high risk defined as RACHS-1 levels 4-6. Regionalization was simulated by progressive closure of hospitals, beginning with the lowest volume hospital. Patients were moved to the next closest hospital. Analyses were conducted (1) maintaining original hospital mortality rates and (2) estimating mortality rates based on predicted surgical volumes after absorbing moved patients. One hundred fifty-three hospitals from 36 states performed 1 or more operation (19,064 operations). With regionalization wherein, all hospitals performed >310 operations, 37 hospitals remained, from 12.5% to 17.4% fewer deaths occurred (83-116/666), and median patient travel distance increased from 38.5 to 69.6 miles (P < 0.01). When only high-risk operations were regionalized, 3.9-5.9% fewer deaths occurred (26-39/666), and the overall mortality rate did not change significantly. Regionalization of CHS in the United States to higher volume centers may reduce mortality with minimal increase in patient travel distance. Much of the mortality reduction may be missed if solely high-risk patients are regionalized.

Preferences for centralised emergency medical services: discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: It is desirable that public preferences are established and incorporated in emergency healthcare reforms. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for local versus centralised provision of all emergency medical services (EMS) and explore what individuals think are important considerations for EMS delivery. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were: travel time to the hospital, waiting time to be seen, length of stay in the hospital, risks of dying, readmission and opportunity for outpatient care after emergency treatment at a local hospital. SETTING: North East England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were a randomly sampled general population, aged 16 years or above recruited from Healthwatch Northumberland network database of lay members and from clinical contact with Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust via Patient Experience Team. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis used logistic regression modelling techniques to determine the preference of each attribute. Marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated to understand the trade-offs individuals were willing to make. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 148 people (62 completed a web and 86 a postal version). Respondents preferred shorter travel time to hospital, shorter waiting time, fewer number of days in hospital, low risk of death, low risk of readmission and outpatient follow-up care in their local hospital. However, individuals were willing to trade off increased travel time and waiting time for high-quality centralised care. Individuals were willing to travel 9 min more for a 1-day reduction in length of stay in the hospital, 38 min for a 1% reduction in risk of death and 112 min for having outpatient follow-up care at their local hospital. CONCLUSIONS: People value centralised EMS if it provides higher quality care and are willing to travel further and wait longer.

Type A Aortic Dissection in the United Kingdom: The Untold Facts.

There is a lack of evidence on multiple levels for appropriate recognition, management, and outcome results in Type A aortic dissection management in the United Kingdom. A huge amount of retrospective data exists in the literature which provides nonmeaningful prospect to a service that meets the current era. Electronic searches were performed on PubMed and Cochrane databases with no limits placed on dates. Search terms were charted to MeSH terms and combined using Boolean operations, and also used as key words. Papers were selected on the basis of title and abstract. The reference lists of selected papers were reviewed to identify any relevant papers that might be suitable for inclusion in the study. Papers were selected based on providing primary end points of death, rupture, or dissection and/or information regarding aortic aneurysm growth. Papers were not excluded based on patient population age. We demonstrated the lack of evidence for quality outcomes in type A aortic dissection in the United Kingdom. This highlighted the unwarranted variation seen in this entity and the caveats needed to improve structuring of type A aortic dissection from early identification in emergency departments to arrival at destination site for optimum intervention. Emergency services should be restructured to meet the immediate affirmation of diagnosis with gold standard imaging modality available. Management of this dire disease should be instituted at local hospitals prior to transportation and results should be audited regularly to improve quality outcomes. Attempts should be made to create local area networks to improve the efficiencies and outcomes of the service and transfer to centers with concentration of expertise. Recognition of regional networks by the UK Government Care Quality Commission should in part based on cumulative evidence sought after from virtual multidisciplinary teams. Unwarranted variation is an avenue that requires to be addressed to rise with service provision that meets our patients aspiration and be of current evidence in the 21st era.

Centralization of High-Risk Cancer Surgery Within Existing Hospital Systems.

PURPOSE: Centralization is often proposed as a strategy to improve the quality of certain high-risk health care services. We evaluated the extent to which existing hospital systems centralize high-risk cancer surgery and whether centralization is associated with short-term clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We merged data from the American Hospital Association's annual survey on hospital system affiliation with Medicare claims to identify patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic, esophageal, colon, lung, or rectal cancer between 2005 and 2014. We calculated the degree to which systems centralized each procedure by calculating the annual proportion of surgeries performed at the highest-volume hospital within each system. We then estimated the independent effect of centralization on the incidence of postoperative complications, death, and readmissions after accounting for patient, hospital, and system characteristics. RESULTS: The average degree of centralization varied from 25.2% (range, 6.6% to 100%) for colectomy to 71.2% (range, 8.3% to 100%) for pancreatectomy. Greater centralization was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications and death for lung resection, esophagectomy, and pancreatectomy. For example, there was a 1.1% (95% CI, 0.8% to 1.4%) absolute reduction in 30-day mortality after pancreatectomy for each 20% increase in the degree of centralization within systems. Independent of volume and hospital quality, postoperative mortality for pancreatectomy was two times higher in the least centralized systems than in the most centralized systems (8.9% v 3.7%, P < .01). Centralization was not associated with better outcomes for colectomy or proctectomy. CONCLUSION: Greater centralization of complex cancer surgery within existing hospital systems was associated with better outcomes. As hospitals affiliate in response to broader financial and organization pressures, these systems may also present unique opportunities to improve the quality of high-risk cancer care.

The European study on centralisation of childhood cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is generally agreed to centralise treatment of childhood cancers (CCs). We analysed (1) the degree of centralisation of CCs in European countries and 2) the relations between centralisation and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis comprised 4415 CCs, diagnosed between 2000 and 2007 and followed up to the end of 2013, from Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia. All these countries had national population-based cancer registries and were able to provide information on diagnosis, treatment, treatment hospitals, and survival. Each case was then classified according to whether the patient was treated in a high- or a low-volume hospital among those providing CC treatment. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the relation between volume category and five-year survival, adjusting by age, sex and diagnostic group. RESULTS: The number of hospitals providing treatment for CCs ranged from six (Slovenia) to slightly more than 40 (the Netherlands and Belgium). We identified a single higher volume hospital in Ireland and in Slovenia, treating 80% and 97% of cases, respectively, and three to five major hospitals in the other countries, treating between 65% and 93% of cases. Outcome was significantly better when primary treatment was given in high-volume hospitals compared to low-volume hospitals for central nervous system tumours (relative risk [RR] = 0.71), haematologic tumours (RR = 0.74) and for all CC combined (RR = 0.83). CONCLUSION: Treatment centralisation is associated with survival benefits and should be further strengthened in these countries. New plans for centralisation should include ongoing evaluation.

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.

Expert opinion on the creating and operating of the regional Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT). Polish PERT Initiative.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) is a multidisciplinary team established to stratify risk and choose optimal treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Established for the first time at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2013, PERT is based on a concept combining a Rapid Response Team and a Heart Team. The growing role of PERTs in making individual therapeutic decisions is identified, especially in hemodynamically unstable patients with contraindications to thrombolysis or with co-morbidities, as well as in patients with intermediate-high risk in whom a therapeutic decision may be difficult. The purpose of this document is to define the standards of PERT under Polish conditions, based on the experience of teams already operating in Poland, which formed an agreement called the Polish PERT Initiative. The goals of Polish PERT Initiative are: improving the treatment of patients with PE at local, regional and national levels, gathering, assessing and sharing data on the effectiveness of PE treatment (including various types of catheter-directed therapy), education on optimal treatment of PE, creating expert documents and supporting scientific research, as well as cooperation with other communities and scientific societies.

Impact of Patient Distance From Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Centers on Longitudinal Outcomes.

Background In regional healthcare referral networks, specialty care is provided at a few sites within the network, with patients referred there for management. This model may increase access to specialized care but also increases the distance that patients travel to receive such care, with unknown effects on longitudinal outcomes. The Veterans Administration uses such regional models for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of patient distance from specialty centers on longitudinal outcomes after receipt of specialized care is understudied and may carry implications for care delivery models. Methods and Results We identified 31 483 patients undergoing PCI at 64 Veterans Administration sites between 2008 to 2012, and assessed the relationship between quintile (Qn) of patient distance from PCI center and all-cause death or myocardial infarction within a year of PCI. Secondary analyses investigated interactions between patient distance and PCI presentation, urgency, and Medicare eligibility on the primary outcome. Median distance to PCI site was 48 miles (interquartile range, 17-110). After adjustment, increasing distance from PCI center was not associated with higher risk of 1-year death or myocardial infarction (with Qn1 as reference, Qn2: odds ratio, 1.02 [95% simultaneous CI, 0.84-1.25]; Qn3: 1.06 [95% simultaneous CI, 0.87-1.30]; Qn4: 0.92 [95% simultaneous CI, 0.75-1.14]; Qn5: 0.97 [95% simultaneous CI, 0.78-1.20]). Stratifying the cohort by acute coronary syndrome presentation, urgency of PCI, and by eligibility for Medicare did not find an association between distance and outcome. Conclusions In this cohort of US veterans, 50% traveled 48 miles or longer to undergo PCI, and 25% traveled >110 miles. Despite this wide range of distances traveled, there was no association between patient distance to PCI center and subsequent outcomes of death or myocardial infarction at 1 year. These findings suggest that regional referral networks may represent viable models for PCI care delivery.

Impact of Centralized Management of Bariatric Surgery Complications on 90-day Mortality.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The potential benefit of the centralization of Bariatric surgery (BS) remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on 90-day mortality of an innovative organization aiming at centralizing the care of severe postoperative complications of BS. STUDY DESIGN: The centralization of care for postoperative complication after BS was implemented by French Authorities in 2013 in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region, France. This unique formalized network (OSEAN), coordinated by 1 tertiary referral center, enrolled all regional institutions performing bariatric surgery. Data were extracted from the medico-administrative database providing information on all patients undergoing BS between 2009 and 2016 in OSEAN (n = 22,928) and in Rest of France (n = 288,942). The primary outcome was the evolution of 90-day mortality before and after the implementation of this policy. Rest of France was used as a control group to adjust the results to improvement with time of BS outcomes. RESULTS: The numbers of primary procedure and reoperations increased similarly before and after 2013 within OSEAN and in Rest of France. The 90-day mortality rate became significantly lower within OSEAN than in the rest of France after 2013 (0.03% vs 0.08%, P < 0.01). This difference was confirmed in multivariate analysis after adjustment to the procedure specific mortality (P < 0.04). The reduction of 90-day mortality was most visible for sleeve gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: The implementation of centralized care for early postoperative complications after BS in OSEAN was associated with reduced 90-day mortality. Our results indicate that this reduction was not due to a lower incidence of complications but to the improvement of their management.

Cluster-Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Centralized Clinical Pharmacy Service in Private Family Medicine Offices.

BACKGROUND: The use of clinical pharmacists in primary care has improved the control of several chronic cardiovascular conditions. However, many private physician practices lack the resources to implement team-based care with pharmacists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a centralized, remote, clinical pharmacy service could improve guideline adherence and secondary measures of cardiovascular risk in primary care offices in rural and small communities. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a prospective trial in 12 family medicine offices cluster randomized to either the intervention or usual care. The intervention was delivered for 12 months, and subjects had research visits at baseline and 12 months. The primary outcome was adherence to guidelines, and secondary outcomes included changes in key cardiovascular risk factors and preventative health measures. We enrolled 302 subjects. There was no improvement in the Guideline Advantage score from baseline to 12 months in the control group (64.7% versus 63.1%, respectively; P=0.21). There was a statistically significant improvement in the intervention group from 63.3% at baseline to 67.8% at 12 months (P=0.02). The estimated benefit of the intervention was 5.0%±2.4% (95% confidence interval=-0.5% to 10.4%; P=0.07). Several criteria were significantly better for intervention subjects, including appropriate statin therapy (P<0.001), body mass index, screening (P<0.001), and alcohol screening (P<0.001). Only 13.7% of subjects with diabetes mellitus had hemoglobin A1c at goal at baseline, and this increased to 30.8% and 21.0% in the intervention and control group, respectively, at 12 months (P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: The centralized, remote pharmacist intervention was successfully implemented. The improvements in outcomes were modest, in part because of higher than expected baseline guideline adherence. Future studies of this model should focus on patients with uncontrolled conditions at high risk for cardiovascular events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 01983813.

Centralizing Esophagectomy to Improve Outcomes and Enhance Clinical Research: Invited Expert Review.

Since the 1970s, studies have demonstrated a strong association between operative volume and outcomes such as death and complications, particularly for complex cancer resections such as esophagectomy. The denouement has been to suggest that this operation should be directed toward specialized centers of esophageal cancer care, with operative volume thresholds being the primary basis for evidence-based hospital referral. This article reviews early efforts to centralize esophagectomy, as reported from other countries such as England, Canada, and the Netherlands, as well as the potential effect on access to care from instituting such policies in the United States.

Variation in practice of pouch surgery in England - using SWORD data to cut to the chase and justify centralization.

AIM: Increasing scrutiny on both individual and unit outcomes after surgical procedures is now expected. In the field of inflammatory bowel disease, this is particularly pertinent for outcomes after ileoanal pouch surgery. METHOD: The Surgical Workload and Outcomes Research Database (SWORD) relies on administrative data derived from Hospital Episode Statistics collected in England. The platform was interrogated for pouch procedures undertaken in England between April 2009 and December 2016 to assess national caseload and, between April 2012 and December 2016, to assess variation in caseload and outcomes after pouch surgery. RESULTS: In England there is a suggestion that numbers of pouch procedures may be decreasing. Over 80% of Trusts offering pouch surgery do so at very low volume with less than five procedures per year. There is also a clear phenomenon of the occasional pouch surgeon with 126 surgeons undertaking just one pouch operation during the study period of almost 5 years. Laparoscopic practice varies but 60% of pouches overall were done via an open approach. Mean length of stay was 10.1 days and average 30-day readmission rates were 27.4%. Outside London there appears to be an increasing trend for higher volume units to do more adult pouch procedures and lower volume units to do fewer. CONCLUSION: Low volume units and occasional pouch surgeons present a strong argument for centralization of pouch surgery. Data from England outside London suggest that this may already be happening.

Positive Impact of an Aortic Center Designation.

BACKGROUND: In January 2015, we created a multidisciplinary Aortic Center with the collaboration of Vascular Surgery, Cardiac Surgery, Interventional Radiology, Anesthesia and Hospital Administration. We report the initial success of creating a Comprehensive Aortic Center. METHODS: All aortic procedures performed from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2016 were entered into a prospectively collected database and compared with available data for 2014. Primary outcomes included the number of all aortic related procedures, transfer acceptance rate, transfer time, and proportion of elective/emergent referrals. RESULTS: The Aortic Center included 5 vascular surgeons, 2 cardiac surgeons, and 2 interventional radiologists. Workflow processes were implemented to streamline patient transfers as well as physician and operating room notification. Total aortic volume increased significantly from 162 to 261 patients. This reflected an overall 59% (P = 0.0167) increase in all aorta-related procedures. We had a 65% overall increase in transfer requests with 156% increase in acceptance of referrals and 136% drop in transfer denials (P < 0.0001). Emergent abdominal aortic cases accounted for 17% (n = 45) of our total aortic volume in 2015. The average transfer time from request to arrival decreased from 515 to 352 min, although this change was not statistically significant. We did see a significant increase in the use of air-transfers for aortic patients (P = 0.0041). Factorial analysis showed that time for transfer was affected only by air-transfer use, regardless of the year the patient was transferred. Transfer volume and volume of aortic related procedures remained stable in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Designation as a comprehensive Aortic Center with implementation of strategic workflow systems and a culture of "no refusal of transfers" resulted in a significant increase in aortic volume for both emergent and elective aortic cases. Case volumes increased for all specialties involved in the center. Improvements in transfer center and emergency medical services communication demonstrated a trend toward more efficient transfer times. These increases and improvements were sustainable for 2 years after this designation.