Estimating the potential impact of regionalizing health care delivery based on volume standards versus risk-adjusted mortality rate

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 195-202

  Glance, Laurent G ^a   Osler, Turner M ^b   Mukamel, Dana B ^c   Dick, Andrew W ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Administrative data; Benchmarking; Hierarchical model; Outcome assessment; Quality; Report card; Risk adjustment

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL AORTA ANEURYSM; ANEURYSM SURGERY; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY; DATA EXTRACTION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORTALITY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGIONALIZATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY;

CALIFORNIA; COHORT STUDIES; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REGIONAL HEALTH PLANNING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ADJUSTMENT; THORACIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 34547904325     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: 14643677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm020     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Hewitt M. Interpreting the Volume-Outcome Relationship in the Context of Health Care Quality. Institute of Medicine, vol. 1, 2000.
2. Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, Rennie DJ, Milstein A. Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: Estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA 2000;283:1159-66.
3. Birkmeyer JD. High-risk surgery - follow the crowd. JAMA 2000; 283:1191-3.
4. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. The Leapfrog Group's Patient Safety Practices, 2003: The Potential Benefits of Universal Adoption. internet, 2004.
5. Birkmeyer JD, Skinner JS, Wennberg DE. Will volume-based referral strategies reduce costs or just save lives? Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:234-41.
6. Sheikh K. Reliability of provider volume and outcome associations for healthcare policy. Med Care 2003;41:1111-7.
7. 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.
8. Hannan EL. The relation between volume and outcome in health care. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1677-79.
9. Phillips KA, Luft HS. The policy implications of using hospital and physician volumes as "indicators" of quality of care in a changing health care environment. Int J Qual Health Care 1997;9:341-8.
10. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer CM. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: Potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001;130:415-22.
11. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AF, Finlayson EV et.al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346 1128-44.
12. Thiemann DR, Coresh J, Oetgen WJ et al. The association between hospital volume and survival after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1640-8.
13. Epstein AM. Volume and outcome - it is time to move ahead. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1161-4.
14. Galvin R, Milstein A. Large employers' new strategies in health care. N Engl J Med 2002;347:939-42.
15. California Patient Discharge Data Reporting Manual. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, ed. Sacramento, California, 2000.
16. Stukenborg GJ, Wagner DP Connors AF, Jr. Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without information from prior hospitalizations. Med Can 2001;39:727-39.
17. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998;36:8-27.
18. Gonnella JS, Louis DZ, Gozum ME. Disease Staging: Classification and Severity Stratification. 1994. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Medstat Group.
19. Royston P, Altman DG. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: Parsimonious parameteric modeling. Appl Stat 1994;43:429-467.
20. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143 29-36.
21. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. second edn. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication, 2000.
22. Rice N, Leyland A. Multilevel models: Applications to health data. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:154-64.
23. Hox J. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
24. Maerki SC, Luft HS, Hunt SS. Selecting categories of patients for regionalization. Implications of the relationship between volume and outcome. Med Care 1986;24:148-58.
25. Grumbach K, Anderson GM, Luft HS et al. Regionalization of cardiac surgery in the United States and Canada. Geographic access, choice, and outcomes. JAMA 1995;274:1282-88.
26. Birkmeyer JD, Lucas FL, Wennberg DE. Potential benefits of regionalizing major surgery in Medicare patients. Eff Clin Pract 1999;2 277-83.
27. O'Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM et al. A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. JAMA 1996;275:841-6.
28. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson WG. The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Arch Surg 2002;137:20-7.
29. Luft HS. From observing the relationship between volume and outcome to making policy recommendations: Comments on Sheikh. Med Care 2003;41:1118-22.
30. Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washington, DC.: National Academiy Press, 2001.
31. Glance LG, Dick AW, Osler TM et al. Accuracy of hospital report cards based on administrative data. Health Serv Res 2006; 41 1413-37.
32. Parker JP, Li Z, Damberg CL et al. Administrative Versus Clinical Data for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Report Cards: The View From California. Med Care 2006;44: 687-95.
33. Birkmeyer JD, Stakel TA, Siewers AE et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;349 2117-27.
34. Nallamothu BK, Saint S, Ramsey SD et al. The role of hospital volume in coronary artery bypass grafting. Is more always better? Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:1923-30.
35. Glance LG, Dick AW, Mukamel DB et al. Is the hospital volume-mortality relationship in coronary artery bypass surgery the same for low-risk versus high-risk patients? Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76 1155-62.
36. Wu C, Hannan EL, Ryan TJ et al. Is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on the in-hospital mortality rate for coronary artery bypass graft surgery limited 'to patients at high risk? Circulation 2004;110:784-9.