Differences in operative mortality between high- and low-volume hospitals in Ontario for 5 major surgical procedures: Estimating the number of lives potentially saved through regionalization

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 168, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 1409-1414

  Urbach, David R ^a,b,c   Bell, Chaim M ^a,c   Austin, Peter C ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL AORTA ANEURYSM; ADULT; AGED; ANEURYSM SURGERY; ARTICLE; CANADA; COLON RESECTION; COLORECTAL CANCER; ESOPHAGUS RESECTION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; LUNG LOBECTOMY; LUNG RESECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; RECTUM RESECTION; REGIONALIZATION; SURGICAL MORTALITY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; AGE DISTRIBUTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; LUNG TUMOR; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK FACTOR; SEX RATIO; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VASCULAR SURGERY; WORKLOAD;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; AORTIC ANEURYSM, ABDOMINAL; COHORT STUDIES; COLECTOMY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; ESOPHAGECTOMY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; ONTARIO; PANCREATICODUODENECTOMY; PNEUMONECTOMY; REGIONAL MEDICAL PROGRAMS; RISK FACTORS; SEX DISTRIBUTION; SURGERY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; VASCULAR SURGICAL PROCEDURES; WORKLOAD;

EID: 0038541690     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med 1979;301:1364-9.
2. Houghton A. Variation in outcome of surgical procedures. Br J Surg 1994;81:653-60.
3. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:511-20.
4. Birkmeyer JD. Should we regionalize major surgery? Potential benefits and policy considerations. J Am Coll Surg 2000;190:341-9.
5. Birkmeyer JD. High-risk surgery - Follow the crowd. JAMA 2000;283:1191-3.
6. Sibbald B. Move to close low-volume surgical sites gaining speed. CMAJ 2002;167:177.
7. Grilli R. Specialization and cancer: Words with too many meanings should be handled with care. CMAJ 2001;164:210-1.
8. Wexler MJ. More procedures, better quality of care? Is there a case for regionalization of pancreatic resection for neoplasm? CMAJ 1999;160:671-3.
9. Hemmelgarn BR, Ghali WA, Quan H. A case study of hospital closure and centralization of coronary revascularization procedures. CMAJ 2001;164:1431-5.
10. Birkmeyer JD, Lucas FL, Wennberg DE. Potential benefits of regionalizing major surgery in Medicare patients. Eff Clin Pract 1999;2:277-83.
11. Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, Rennie DJ, Milstein A. Selective referral to high-vohime hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA 2000;283:1159-66.
12. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EVA, Birkmeyer CM. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001;130:415-22.
13. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EVA, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1128-37.
14. Canadian Centre for Health Information Nosology Reference Centre. Canadian classification of diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical proceduros. Second printing. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 1993.
15. Hospital & Payer ICD-9-CM: International classification of diseases, 9th rev, clinical modification. 5th ed. Salt Lake City, Utah: Medicode; 1998.
16. Iron K, Goel V, Williams JI. Concordance of hospital discharge abreracts and physician claims for surgical procedures in Ontario (ICES working paper series #42). North York (ON): Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario; 1995.
17. Mantel N. Chi-square tests with 1 degree of freedom: extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. J Am Stat Assoc 1963;58:690-700.
18. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-83.
19. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:613-9.
20. Zhang J, Yu KF. What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 1998;280:1690-1.
21. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993.
22. Tu JV, Pashos CL, Naylor D, Chen E, Normand SL, Newhouse JP, et al. Use of cardiac procedures and outcomes in elderly patients with myocardial infarction in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1500-5.
23. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 1998;280:1747-51.
24. Schrag D, Cramer LD, Bach PB, Cohen AB, Warren JL, Begg CB. Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer. JAMA 2000;284:3028-35.
25. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, Hur K, Demakis J, Aust JB, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 1998;228:491-507.
26. Finlayson SR, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN, Nease RF Jr. Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med Care 1999;37:204-9.