Hospital volume and ERCP outcomes: the writing is on the wall

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volumn 64, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 348-350

  DiSario, James A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; EDITORIAL; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; HOSPITAL; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED STATES;

CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; DATABASES; DATABASES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33747182571     PISSN: 00165107     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.01.068     Document Type: Editorial

References (33)

1. Cotton P.B., Lehman G., Vennes J., et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 37 (1991) 383-393
2. Jowell P.S., Baillie J., Branch M.S., et al. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 125 (1996) 983-989
3. Principles of training in gastrointestinal endoscopy. From the ASGE. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 49 (1999) 845-853
4. Siegel J.H., Cohen S.A., and Kasmin F.E. Experience and volume: the ingredients for successful therapeutic endoscopic outcomes, especially ERCP and postgastrectomy patients. Am J Gastroenterol 95 (2000) 2133-2134
5. Harewood G.C., and Baron T.H. An assessment of the learning curve for precut biliary sphincterotomy. Am J Gastroenterol 97 (2002) 1708-1712
6. Bruins Slot W., Schoeman M.N., Disario J.A., et al. Needle-knife sphincterotomy as a precut procedure: a retrospective evaluation of efficacy and complications. Endoscopy 28 (1996) 334-339
7. Freeman M.L., Nelson D.B., Sherman S., et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 335 (1996) 909-918
8. Rabenstein T., and Hahn E.G. Post-ERCP pancreatitis: is the endoscopist's experience the major risk factor?. JOP 3 (2002) 177-187
9. Petersen B.T. ERCP outcomes: defining the operators, experience, and environments. Gastrointest Endosc 55 (2002) 953-958
10. Carr-Locke D.L. Biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Can J Gastroenterol 18 (2004) 251-254
11. Freeman M.L. Adverse outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 13 (2003) 775-798 xi
12. Freeman M.L., DiSario J.A., Nelson D.B., et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 54 (2001) 425-434
13. Davis W.Z., Cotton P.B., Arias R., et al. ERCP and sphincterotomy in the context of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: academic and community practice patterns and results. Am J Gastroenterol 92 (1997) 597-601
14. Loperfido S., Angelini G., Beneditti G., et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 48 (1998) 1-10
15. Varadarajulu S., Kilgore M.L., Wilcox C.M., et al. Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 64 (2006) 338-347
16. Birkmeyer J.D., Stukel T.A., Siewers A.E., et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 349 (2003) 2117-2127
17. Begg C.B., Cramer L.D., Hoskins W.J., et al. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 280 (1998) 1747-1751
18. Dimick J.B., Pronovost P.J., Cowan Jr. J.A., et al. Variation in postoperative complication rates after high-risk surgery in the United States. Surgery 13 (2003) 534-540 discussion 540-1
19. Nguyen N.T., Paya M., Stevens C.M., et al. The relationship between hospital volume and outcome in bariatric surgery at academic medical centers. Ann Surg 240 (2004) 586-593 discussion 593-4
20. Harmon J.W., Tang D.G., Gordon T.A., et al. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg 230 (2000) 404-411
21. Granger S.R., Glasgow R.E., Battaglia J., et al. Development of a dedicated hepatopancreaticobiliary program in a university hospital system. J Gastrointest Surg 9 (2005) 891-895
22. Birkmeyer N.J., Goodney P.P., Stukel T.A., et al. Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes?. Cancer 103 (2005) 435-441
23. Bachmann M.O., Alderson D., Peters T.J., et al. Influence of specialization on the management and outcome of patients with pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 90 (2003) 171-177
24. Provenzale D., Ofman J., Gralnek I., et al. Gastroenterologist specialist care and care provided by generalists: an evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency. Am J Gastroenterol 98 (2003) 21-28
25. Parks R.W., Bettschart V., Frame S., et al. Benefits of specialisation in the management of pancreatic cancer: results of a Scottish population-based study. Br J Cancer 91 (2004) 459-465
26. Birkmeyer J.D., Finlayson E.V., and Birkmeyer C.M. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 130 (2001) 415-422
27. Medicare Partnerships for Quality Services Demonstration. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD. Available from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/researchers/demos/qpappfaq.asp. Last modified October 16, 2004.
28. Johanson J.F., Cooper G., Eisen G.M., et al. American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Outcomes Research Committee. Quality assessment of ERCP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 56 (2002) 165-169
29. Zuckerman G.R. Negative outcomes related to gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Definitions, classification, and quality review process. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 6 (1996) 461-470
30. Ragunath K., Thomas L.A., Cheung W.Y., et al. Objective evaluation of ERCP procedures: a simple grading scale for evaluating technical difficulty. Postgrad Med J 79 (2003) 467-470
31. Wicks A.C., Robertson G.S., and Veitch P.S. Structured training and assessment in ERCP has become essential for the Calman era. Gut 45 (1999) 154-156
32. Stillman B.C. Hospital and health plan liability in granting privileges for endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 10 (2005) 2146-2148
33. Sequeira R., Weinbaum F., Satterfield J., et al. Credentialing physicians for new technology: the physician's learning curve must not harm the patient. Am Surg 60 (1994) 821-823