Hospital volume and surgical outcomes for elderly patients with colorectal cancer in the United States1
Introduction
The quality of healthcare is not uniform across medical centers in the United States. Recent attention has focused on the large gaps between the high quality of health care some patients receive and the low quality others receive 1, 2. For surgical procedures, these differences in quality can be measured by examining the outcomes of care across medical centers. Payers, providers, and patients are becoming increasingly interested in identifying centers with the highest quality outcomes. Surgery for colon cancer is commonly performed in a variety of settings across the nation’s hospitals. In general, higher volume hospitals have been shown to have superior outcomes when compared to lower volume centers 3, 4, 5, 6. However, the effect of volume on outcome for this procedure is small when compared to other, more complex procedures, such as pancreatic, esophageal, or hepatic resection 6, 7.
The differences in outcomes associated with provider volume have resulted in efforts by various stakeholders to concentrate surgery in high volume centers 8, 9, 10. Such a policy, however, will have several adverse effects on lower volume centers and may threaten the practice of surgeons in these settings [10]. An alternative strategy for colorectal resection, especially given the small effect of volume on outcome for this procedure, would be to target a higher-risk group of patients for selective referral [11]. Since older patients having elective surgical procedures have been shown to have an increased risk of adverse postoperative outcomes, they may provide an easily identifiable population to target for selective referral [12]. The objective of the current study was to determine the differential effect of hospital volume on outcome for older patients using a nationally representative sample of hospitals.
Section snippets
Data source
The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) is a 20% stratified random sample of all hospital discharges in the United States. It is maintained by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) as part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) [13]. Data for the current study were derived from the 1997 version of the NIS. During this time period, 842 hospitals from 22 states performed colorectal resections for colon cancer. Records for all patients who were discharged from these
Hospital characteristics
There were 842 hospitals in 22 states that performed colon resection for cancer in the 1997 version of the NIS. Of these hospitals, 536 (64%) were low volume, 149 (18%) were medium volume, 97 (12%) were high volume, and 60 (7%) were very high volume. Several hospital characteristics differed across the hospitals volume categories (Table 1). Very-high-volume hospitals were more likely to be teaching hospitals (55% versus 6%, P <0.001) and have a large bed size (78% versus 14%, P <0.001)
Discussion
The safety of undergoing certain surgical procedures is not uniform across medical centers. There is a consistent association of provider volume and outcomes for several operations, with a stronger relationship for more complex procedures. In the current study, we demonstrate that, overall, colon resection for cancer has a significant but small effect of volume on outcome. However, given the higher risk of death for older patients, selectively targeting this population would achieve most of the
References (18)
- et al.
Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of inhospital outcome for colon cancer resection?
Surgery
(2002) - et al.
Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedurespotential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative
Surgery
(2001) Should we regionalize major surgery? Potential benefits and policy considerations
J Am Coll Surg
(2000)- et al.
The role of hospital volume in coronary artery bypass graftingis more always better?
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2001) - et al.
Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative dataDiffering perspectives
J Clin Epidemiol
(1993) - et al.
A new method for classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studiesdevelopment and validation
J Chronic Dis
(1987) - et al.
The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine national roundtable on health care quality
JAMA
(1998) Crossing the Quality ChasmA New Health System for the Twenty-first Century
(2001)- et al.
Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature
Ann. Intern. Med.
(2002)
Cited by (104)
Operative Mortality Prediction for Primary Rectal Cancer: Age Matters
2019, Journal of the American College of SurgeonsAffordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion and Use of Regionalized Surgery at High-Volume Hospitals
2018, Journal of the American College of SurgeonsThe effect of hospital familiarity with complex procedures on overall healthcare burden
2018, American Journal of SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Rogers et al. investigated the impact of surgeon and hospital volume on 28,644 colorectal cancer patients who had tumor resection, and found the adjusted 30-day postoperative mortality to be inversely related to hospital volume, and 5-year survival to be significantly lower in low volume hospitals.10 Other studies have similarly reported an association between volume and short-term complications and mortality and long-term oncologic outcomes.14,16,18,34 Surgery at NCI-designated cancer centers and by trained colorectal surgeons has also been shown to be associated with better overall survival.15
- 1
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Academic Surgery, Boston, MA, November 7th–9th, 2002