Operative mortality and procedure volume as predictors of subsequent hospital performance
- PMID: 16495708
- PMCID: PMC1448928
- DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000201800.45264.51
Operative mortality and procedure volume as predictors of subsequent hospital performance
Abstract
Context: Despite growing interest in evidence-based hospital referral for selected surgical procedures, there remains considerable debate about which measures should be used to identify high-quality providers.
Objectives: To assess the usefulness of historical mortality rates and procedure volume as predictors of subsequent hospital performance with different procedures.
Design, setting, and participants: Using data from the national Medicare population, we identified all U.S. hospitals performing one of 4 high-risk procedures between 1994 and 1997. Hospitals were ranked and grouped into quintiles according to 1) operative mortality (adjusted for patient characteristics) and 2) procedure volume.
Main outcome measures: Risk-adjusted operative mortality in 1998 to 1999.
Results: Although historical mortality and volume both predicted subsequent hospital performance, the predictive value of each varied by procedure. For coronary artery bypass graft surgery, mortality rates in 1998 to 1999 differed by 3.3% across quintiles of historical mortality (3.6% to 6.9%, best to worst quintile, respectively), but only by 1.0% across volume quintiles (4.8% to 5.8%). In contrast, for esophagectomy, mortality rates in 1998 to 1999 differed by 12.5% across volume quintiles (7.5% to 20.0%, best to worst quintile, respectively), but only by 1.5% across quintiles of historical mortality (11.4% to 12.9%). Historical mortality and procedure volume had comparable value as predictors of subsequent performance for pancreatic resection and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Our findings were similar when we repeated the analysis using data from later years.
Conclusions: Historical measures of operative mortality or procedure volume identify hospitals likely to have better outcomes in the future. The optimal measure for selecting high-quality providers depends on the procedure.
Figures
References
-
- Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313–316. - PubMed
-
- Texas Health Care Information Council. Indicators of Inpatient Care in Texas Hospitals, 1999–2001. Austin: Texas Health Care Information Council, 2003.
-
- 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. - PubMed
-
- Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, et al. Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA. 2000;283:1159–1166. - PubMed
-
- 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. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
