Measuring Surgical Quality: What’s the Role of Provider Volume?

Although not ideal for all situations, provider volume is particularly suited for measuring surgical quality in certain contexts. Specifically, we believe that for uncommon operations with a strong volumes–outcome effect, provider volume may be the most informative performance measure. Because of the relative ease of determining provider volume, it will continue to be used in value-based purchasing and public reporting efforts. With increasing momentum from outside the profession of surgery, it is particularly important for surgeons to participate in making decisions regarding situations where volume may be an appropriate measure of quality.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41304/1/268_2005_Article_7989.pd

Volume-based referral for cardiovascular procedures in the United States: a cross-sectional regression analysis

BACKGROUND: We sought to estimate the numbers of patients affected and deaths avoided by adopting the Leapfrog Group's recommended hospital procedure volume minimums for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In addition to hospital risk-adjusted mortality standards, the Leapfrog Group recommends annual hospital procedure minimums of 450 for CABG and 400 for PCI to reduce procedure-associated mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a national hospital discharge database to evaluate in-hospital mortality among patients who underwent PCI (n = 2,500,796) or CABG (n = 1,496,937) between 1998 and 2001. We calculated the number of patients treated at low volume hospitals and simulated the number of deaths potentially averted by moving all patients to high volume hospitals under best-case conditions (i.e., assuming the full volume-associated reduction in mortality and the capacity to move all patients to high volume hospitals with no related harms). RESULTS: Multivariate adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were higher for patients treated in low volume hospitals compared with high volume hospitals for CABG (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10–1.24) and PCI (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.20). A policy of hospital volume minimums would have required moving 143,687 patients for CABG and 87,661 patients for PCI from low volume to high volume hospitals annually and prevented an estimated 619 CABG deaths and 109 PCI deaths. Thus, preventing a single death would have required moving 232 CABG patients or 805 PCI patients from low volume to high volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: Recommended hospital CABG and PCI volume minimums would prevent 728 deaths annually in the United States, fewer than previously estimated. It is unclear whether a policy requiring the movement of large numbers of patients to avoid relatively few deaths is feasible or effective

Quality of Care in Humanitarian Surgery

Humanitarian surgical programs are set up de novo, within days or hours in emergency or disaster settings. In such circumstances, insuring quality of care is extremely challenging. Basic structural inputs such as a safe structure, electricity, clean water, a blood bank, sterilization equipment, a post-anesthesia recovery unit, appropriate medications should be established. Currently, no specific credentials are needed for surgeons to operate in a humanitarian setting; the training of more humanitarian surgeons is desperately needed. Standard perioperative protocols for the humanitarian setting after common procedures such as Cesarean section, burn care, open fractures, and amputations and antibiotic prophylaxis, and post-operative pain management must be developed. Outcome data, especially long-term outcomes, are difficult to collect as patients often do not return for follow-up and may be difficult to trace; standard databases for post-operative infections and mortality rates should be established. Checklists have recently received significant attention as an instrument to support the improvement of surgical quality; knowing which items are most applicable to humanitarian settings remains unknown. In conclusion, the quality of surgical services in humanitarian settings must be regulated. Many other core medical activities of humanitarian organizations such as therapeutic feeding, mass vaccination, and the treatment of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus, are subject to rigorous reporting of quality indicators. There is no reason why surgery should be exempted from quality oversight. The surgical humanitarian community should pull together before the next disaster strikes

The most dangerous hospital or the most dangerous equation?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hospital mortality rates are one of the most frequently selected indicators for measuring the performance of NHS Trusts. A recent article in a national newspaper named the hospital with the highest or lowest mortality in the 2005/6 financial year; a report by the organization Dr Foster Intelligence provided information with regard to the performance of all NHS Trusts in England.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Basic statistical theory and computer simulations were used to explore the relationship between the variations in the performance of NHS Trusts and the sizes of the Trusts. Data of hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) of 152 English NHS Trusts for 2005/6 were re-analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A close examination of the information reveals a pattern which is consistent with a statistical phenomenon, discovered by the French mathematician de Moivre nearly 300 years ago, described in every introductory statistics textbook: namely that variation in performance indicators is expected to be greater in small Trusts and smaller in large Trusts. From a statistical viewpoint, the number of deaths in a hospital is not in proportion to the size of the hospital, but is proportional to the square root of its size. Therefore, it is not surprising to note that small hospitals are more likely to occur at the top and the bottom of league tables, whilst mortality rates are independent of hospital sizes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This statistical phenomenon needs to be taken into account in the comparison of hospital Trusts performance, especially with regard to policy decisions.</p

The Politics of Evidence Use in Health Policy Making in Germany-the Case of Regulating Hospital Minimum Volumes.

This article examines the role of scientific evidence in informing health policy decisions in Germany, using minimum volumes policy as a case study. It argues that scientific evidence was used strategically at various stages of the policy process both by individual corporatist actors and by the Federal Joint Committee as the regulator. Minimum volumes regulation was inspired by scientific evidence suggesting a positive relationship between service volume and patient outcomes for complex surgical interventions. Federal legislation was introduced in 2002 to delegate the selection of services and the setting of volumes to corporatist decision makers. Yet, despite being represented in the Federal Joint Committee, hospitals affected by its decisions took the Committee to court to seek legal redress and prevent policy implementation. Evidence has been key to support, and challenge, decisions about minimum volumes, including in court. The analysis of the role of scientific evidence in minimum volumes regulation in Germany highlights the dynamic relationship between evidence use and the political and institutional context of health policy making, which in this case is characterized by the legislative nature of policy making, corporatism, and the role of the judiciary in reviewing policy decisions

Early efficacy of CABG care delivery in a low procedure-volume community hospital: operative and midterm results

BACKGROUND: The Leapfrog Group recommended that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery should be done at high volume hospitals (>450 per year) without corresponding surgeon-volume criteria. The latter confounds procedure-volume effects substantially, and it is suggested that high surgeon-volume (>125 per year) rather than hospital-volume may be a more appropriate indicator of CABG quality. METHODS: We assessed 3-year isolated CABG morbidity and mortality outcomes at a low-volume hospital (LVH: 504 cases) and compared them to the corresponding Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) national data over the same period (2001–2003). All CABGs were performed by 5 high-volume surgeons (161–285 per year). "Best practice" care at LVH – including effective practice guidelines, protocols, data acquisition capabilities, case review process, dedicated facilities and support personnel – were closely modeled after a high-volume hospital served by the same surgeon-team. RESULTS: Operative mortality was similar for LVH and STS (OM: 2.38% vs. 2.53%), and the corresponding LVH observed-to-expected mortality (O/E = 0.81) indicated good quality relative to the STS risk model (O/E<1). Also, these results were consistent irrespective of risk category: O/E was 0, 0.9 and 1.03 for very-low risk (<1%), low risk (1–3%) and moderate-to-high risk category (>3%), respectively. Postoperative leg wound infections, ventilator hours, renal dysfunction (no dialysis), and atrial fibrillation were higher for LVH, but hospital stay was not. The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival for the LVH cohort was 96%, 94%, and 92% at one, two, and three years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that high quality CABG care can be achieved at LVH programs if 1) served by high volume surgeons and 2) patient care procedures similar to those of large programs are implemented. This approach may prove a useful paradigm to ensure high quality CABG care and early efficacy at low volume institutions that wish to comply with the Leapfrog standards

Centralization of Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Does It Improve Clinical Outcome?

Background: The volume-outcome relationship for complex surgical procedures has been extensively studied. Most studies are based on administrative data and use in-hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure. It is still unknown if concentration of these procedures leads to improvement of clinical outcome. The aim of our study was to audit the process and effect of centralizing oesophageal resections for cancer by using detailed clinical data. Methods: From January 1990 until December 2004, 555 esophagectomies for cancer were performed in 11 hospitals in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Center West (CCCW); 342 patients were operated on before and 213 patients after the introduction of a centralization project. In this project patients were referred to the hospitals which showed superior outcomes in a regional audit. In this audit patient, tumor, and operative details as well as clinical outcome were compared between hospitals. The outcome of both cohorts, patients operated on before and after the start of the project, were evaluated. Results: Despite the more severe comorbidity of the patient group, outcome improved after centralizing esophageal resections. Along with a reduction in postoperative morbidity and length of stay, mortality fell from 12% to 4% and survival improved significantly (P = 0.001). The hospitals with the highest procedural volume showed the biggest improvement in outcome. Conclusion: Volume is an important determinant of quality of care in esophageal cancer surgery. Referral of patients with esophageal cancer to surgical units with adequate experience and superior outcomes (outcome-based referral) improves quality of care

High-Volume versus Low-Volume for Esophageal Resections for Cancer: The Essential Role of Case-Mix Adjustments based on Clinical Data

Background: Most studies addressing the volume-outcome relationship in complex surgical procedures use hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure and are rarely based on detailed clinical data. The lack of reliable information about comorbidities and tumor stages makes the conclusions of these studies debatable. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for esophageal resections for cancer in low- versus high-volume hospitals, using an extensive set of variables concerning case-mix and outcome measures, including long-term survival. Methods: Clinical data, from 903 esophageal resections performed between January 1990 and December 1999, were retrieved from the original patients' files. Three hundred and forty-two patients were operated on in 11 low-volume hospitals (<7 resections/year) and 561 in a single high-volume center. Results: Mortality and morbidity rates were significantly lower in the high-volume center, which had an in-hospital mortality of 5 vs 13% (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume, but also the presence of comorbidity proved to be strong prognostic factors predicting in-hospital mortality (ORs 3.05 and 2.34). For stage I and II disease, there was a significantly better 5-year survival in the high-volume center. (P = .04). Conclusions: Hospital volume and comorbidity patterns are important determinants of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery. Strong clinical endpoints such as in-hospital mortality and survival can be used as performance indicators, only if they are joined by reliable case-mix information

Treatment of Gastric Adenocarcinoma May Differ Among Hospital Types in the United States, a Report from the National Cancer Data Base

The concept that complex surgical procedures should be performed at high-volume centers to improve surgical morbidity and mortality is becoming widely accepted. We wanted to determine if there were differences in the treatment of patients with gastric cancer between community cancer centers and teaching hospitals in the United States. Data from the 2001 Gastric Cancer Patient Care Evaluation Study of the National Cancer Data Base comprising 6,047 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma treated at 691 hospitals were assessed. The mean number of patients treated was larger at teaching hospitals (14/year) when compared to community centers (5–9/year) (p < 0.05). The utilization of laparoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography were significantly more common at teaching centers (p < 0.01). Pathologic assessment of greater than 15 nodes was documented in 31% of specimen at community hospitals and 38% at teaching hospitals (p < 0.01). Adjusted for cancer stage, chemotherapy and radiation therapy were utilized with equal frequency at all types of treatment centers. The 30-day postoperative mortality was lowest at teaching hospitals (5.5%) and highest at community hospitals (9.9%) (p < 0.01). These data support previous publications demonstrating that patients with diseases requiring specialized treatment have lower operative mortality when treated at high-volume centers