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
- PMID: 19730178
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b47c79
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
Abstract
Background: Previous reports showed that in California during the early 1990s, operative mortality rates for esophageal, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers were inversely related to hospital volume. It is unknown whether this information has affected referral patterns or operative mortality rates.
Objectives: Data were analyzed for the 10 years that followed the period covered in the initial studies to determine if: (a) the operative mortality rates had decreased; and (b) a greater proportion of patients with esophageal, pancreatic, and hepatic cancers were treated at high-volume centers.
Methods: Hospital discharge data were obtained for 8901 patients who had resections for cancer of the esophagus, 2404 patients; pancreas, 5294 patients; and liver, 1203 patients in California between 1995 and 2004. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted mortality rates at high- and low-volume centers by year. The data were compared with the published results for California during the years 1990-1994.
Results: Operative mortality rates decreased for esophageal, pancreatic, and hepatic resections during the more recent 10 years. Concomitantly, the proportion of patients treated at high-volume centers increased, as did the number of high-volume centers. There was a substantial increase in the proportion of esophagectomies performed in high-volume hospitals, while the overall number of esophagectomies dropped by 22%. For the other 2 operations, total volume and the volume in high-volume hospitals increased greatly, and the volume in low-volume hospitals was about the same during the 3 periods. The mortality rates decreased at all levels of the volume range. Finally, the performance from one period to the next in individual hospitals was mostly similar, but an occasional outlier was also noted.
Conclusions: More resections for esophageal, pancreatic, and hepatic cancer were performed at high volume centers, but mortality rates decreased for all hospital categories. The data suggest that modern hospitals act as complex adaptive systems, whose outputs are determined from the interactions between internal agents and are resistant to analysis by isolating and studying the individual contributions. It is tempting to attribute the desirable changes in these data (eg, more operations being done in high volume centers and better mortality rates at all levels) as consequences of pressures over the past few decades on hospitals to assume greater responsibility for their quality of care and to become more integrated internally.Thus, many factors appear to influence the volume-outcome relationships, and the identity and individual contributions of these influences may be immune to reductionist analysis. There is substantial evidence that high volume should be part of high quality for these complex operations. Nevertheless, measuring outcomes directly, rather than concentrating on their correlates, may be a more reliable index of hospital performance.
Similar articles
-
Hospital volume influences outcome in patients undergoing pancreatic resection for cancer.West J Med. 1996 Nov;165(5):294-300. West J Med. 1996. PMID: 8993200 Free PMC article.
-
Outcome of low-volume surgery for esophageal cancer in a high-volume referral center.Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec;16(12):3219-26. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0700-5. Epub 2009 Sep 24. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009. PMID: 19777184
-
Influence of hospital characteristics on operative death and survival of patients after major cancer surgery in Ontario.Can J Surg. 2006 Aug;49(4):251-8. Can J Surg. 2006. PMID: 16948883 Free PMC article.
-
Volume- or outcome-based referral to improve quality of care for esophageal cancer surgery in The Netherlands.J Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun 15;99(8):481-7. doi: 10.1002/jso.21191. J Surg Oncol. 2009. PMID: 19466737 Review.
-
High-volume centers--effect of case load on outcome in cancer surgery.Onkologie. 2004 Aug;27(4):412-6. doi: 10.1159/000079099. Onkologie. 2004. PMID: 15347901 Review.
Cited by
-
Primary Liver Cancer: An NCDB Analysis of Overall Survival and Margins After Hepatectomy.Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Apr;27(4):1156-1163. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07843-5. Epub 2019 Nov 1. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020. PMID: 31677109
-
Association of Hospital Volume and Quality of Care With Survival for Ovarian Cancer.Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Sep;130(3):545-553. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002164. Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28796677 Free PMC article.
-
Extended lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer is debatable.World J Surg. 2013 Aug;37(8):1757-67. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2018-5. World J Surg. 2013. PMID: 23553174
-
Trends in hospital volume and patterns of referral for women with gynecologic cancers.Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;121(6):1217-1225. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31828ec686. Obstet Gynecol. 2013. PMID: 23812455 Free PMC article.
-
Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.JAMA Surg. 2019 Nov 1;154(11):1005-1012. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.3017. JAMA Surg. 2019. PMID: 31411663 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous