A decade of mortality reductions in major oncologic surgery: The impact of centralization and quality improvement

Medical Care

Volumn 48, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1041-1049

  Learn, Peter A ^a   Bach, Peter B ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

centralization; esophagectomy; pancreatectomy; volume outcome

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SURGERY; CENTRALIZATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ESOPHAGUS RESECTION; FEMALE; GASTRECTOMY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LUNG RESECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PANCREAS RESECTION; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; CENTRALIZED HOSPITAL SERVICES; ESOPHAGECTOMY; FEMALE; HEPATECTOMY; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; ONCOLOGY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PANCREATECTOMY; PNEUMONECTOMY; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SURGERY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78650179654     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f37d5f     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1364-1369.
2. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, et al. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA. 1998;280:1747-1751.
3. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128-1137.
4. 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;137:511-520.
5. Urbach DR, Austin PC. Conventional models overestimate the statistical significance of volume-outcome associations, compared with multilevel models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:391-400.
6. Smith DL, Elting LS, Learn PA, et al. Factors influencing the volume-outcome relationship in gastrectomies: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1846-1852.
7. Gordon TA, Burleyson GP, Tielsch JM, et al. The effects of regional-ization on cost and outcome for one general high-risk surgical procedure. Ann Surg. 1995;221:43-49.
8. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135: 569-575.
9. Hewitt M, Simone JV, eds.Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC:National Academy Press;1999.
10. Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, et al. Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA. 2000; 283:1159-1166.
11. Thomas JW, Hofer TP. Accuracy of risk-adjusted mortality rate as a measure of hospital quality of care. Med Care. 1999;37:83-92.
12. Sheikh K. Reliability of provider volume and outcome associations for healthcare policy. Med Care. 2003;41:1111-1117.
13. Dimick JB, Welch HG, Birkmeyer JD. Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA. 2004; 292:847-851.
14. Finlayson SR, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN, et al. Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med Care. 1999;37: 204-209.
15. Stitzenberg KB, Sigurdson ER, Egleston BL, et al. Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4671-4678.
16. Bach PB, Cramer LD, Schrag D, et al. The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345: 181-188.
17. Berger DH, Ko CY, Spain DA. Society of University Surgeons position statement on the volume-outcome relationship for surgical procedures. Surgery. 2003;134:34-40.
18. Improving Outcomes in Upper Gastro-Intestinal Cancers. NHS Executive, Department of Health. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod-consum-dh/groups/ dh-digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/ dh-4080278.pdf. Accessed October 19, 2009.
19. Langer B. Role of volume outcome data in assuring quality in HPB surgery. HPB (Oxford). 2007;9:330-334.
20. Marcaccio M, Langer B, Rumble B, et al; Expert Panel on HPB Surgical Oncology CCO, ed. Hepatic, Pancreatic, and Biliary Tract (HPB) Surgical Oncology Standards. Toronto, ON:CCO; 2006.
21. Al-Sarira AA, David G, Willmott S, et al. Oesophagectomy practice and outcomes in England. Br J Surg. 2007;94:585-591.
22. Geraedts M, de Cruppe W, Blum K, et al. Implementation and effects of Germany's minimum volume regulations: results of the accompanying research. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008;105:890-896.
23. de Cruppe W, Ohmann C, Blum K, et al. Evaluating compulsory minimum volume standards in Germany: how many hospitals were compliant in 2004? BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:165.
24. Wouters MW, Karim-Kos HE, le Cessie S, et al. Centralization of esophageal cancer surgery: does it improve clinical outcome? Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1789-1798.
25. Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M, et al. Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg. 1995;222:638-645.
26. Swisher SG, Deford L, Merriman KW, et al. Effect of operative volume on morbidity, mortality, and hospital use after esophagectomy for cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:1126-1132.
27. Finlayson EV, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer JD. Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study. Arch Surg. 2003;138: 721-725; discussion 726.
28. Urbach DR, Bell CM, Austin PC. 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. 2003;168:1409-1414.
29. Houchens RL, Elixhauser A. Using the HCUP nationwide inpatient sample to estimate trends (updated for 1988-2004). HCUP Methods Series Report 2006-05 Online: U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/2006-05- NISTrendsReport-1988-2004.pdf.
30. Hewitt M, Petitti D, eds. Interpreting the Volume-Outcome Relationship in the Context of Cancer Care. Washington, DC:National Academy Press 2001.
31. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN, et al. Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 1999;125:250-256.
32. Rosenthal GE, Baker DW, Norris DG, et al. Relationships between in-hospital and 30-day standardized hospital mortality: implications for profiling hospitals. Health Serv Res. 2000;34:1449-1468.
33. AHRQ Quality Indicators. 2010. Available at: http://www. qualityindicators. ahrq.gov/iqi-download.htm. Accessed June 11, 2010.
34. Marcin JP, Li Z, Kravitz RL, et al. The CABG surgery volume-outcome relationship: temporal trends and selection effects in California, 1998- 2004. Health Serv Res. 2008;43:174-192.
35. Panageas KS, Schrag D, Riedel E, et al. The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:658-665.
36. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36:8-27.
37. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1075-1079; discussion 1081-1090.
38. Ho V, Heslin MJ, Yun H, et al. Trends in hospital and surgeon volume and operative mortality for cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13: 851-858.
39. Gasper WJ, Glidden DV, Jin C, et al. Has recognition of the relationship between mortality rates and hospital volume for major cancer surgery in california made a difference? A follow-up analysis of another decade. Ann Surg. 2009;250:472-483.
40. Boudourakis LD, Wang TS, Roman SA, et al. Evolution of the surgeon-volume, patient-outcome relationship. Ann Surg. 2009;250:159-165.
41. Vollmer CM Jr, Pratt W, Vanounou T, et al. Quality assessment in high-acuity surgery: volume and mortality are not enough. Arch Surg. 2007;142:371-380.
42. Grover FL, Shroyer AL, Hammermeister K, et al. A decade's experience with quality improvement in cardiac surgery using the Veterans Affairs and Society of Thoracic Surgeons national databases. Ann Surg. 2001; 234:464-472; discussion 472-464.
43. Brennan MF, Radzyner M, Rubin DM. Outcome-more than just operative mortality. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:470-477.
44. Nathan H, Pawlik TM. Limitations of claims and registry data in surgical oncology research. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:415-423.
45. Ko CY, Chang JT, Chaudhry S, et al. Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of in-hospital outcome for colon cancer resection? Surgery. 2002;132:268-273.
46. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2117-2127.
47. Birkmeyer JD. Understanding surgeon performance and improving patient outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2765-2766.
48. Joseph B, Morton JM, Hernandez-Boussard T, et al. Relationship between hospital volume, system clinical resources, and mortality in pancreatic resection. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:520-527.
49. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Lillemoe KD, et al. Assessment of pancreatic cancer care in the United States based on formally developed quality indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:848-859.