Explore the vast range of titles available.

High-volume hospitals are purported to provide “best” outcomes. We undertook this study to evaluate the outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy when high-volume surgeons relocate to a low-volume hospital (ie, no pancreaticoduodenectomies in >5 years). Outcomes after the last 50 pancreaticoduodenectomies undertaken at a high-volume hospital in 2012 (ie, before relocation) were compared with the outcomes after the first 50 pancreaticoduodenectomies undertaken at a low-volume hospital (ie, after relocation) in 2012 to 2013. Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomies at a high-volume vs a low-volume hospital were not different by age or sex. Patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy at the low-volume hospital had shorter operations with less blood loss, spent less time in the intensive care unit, and had shorter length of stay (P < .05 for each); 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates were not different. The salutary benefits of undertaking pancreaticoduodenectomy at a high-volume hospital are transferred to a low-volume hospital when high-volume surgeons relocate. The “best” results follow high-volume surgeons.

Background We sought to evaluate trends in selection of high volume (HV) hospitals for pancreatic surgery, as well as examine trends in preoperative complications, mortality, and failure to rescue (FTR). Method Patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 2000 and 2011 were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Preoperative morbidity, mortality, and FTR were examined over time. Hospital volume was stratified into tertiles based on the number of pancreatic resections per year for each time period. Logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of hospital volume on risk of complication, postoperative mortality, and FTR over time. Result A total of 35,986 patients were identified. Median hospital volume increased from 13 in 2000–2003 to 55 procedures/year in 2008–2011 ( P  < 0.001). Morbidity remained relatively the same over time at low volume (LV), intermediate volume (IV), and HV hospitals (all P  > 0.05). Overall postoperative mortality was 5 %, and it decreased over time across all hospital volumes ( P  < 0.05). FTR was more common at LV (12.0 %) and IV (8.5 %) volume hospitals compared with HV hospitals (6.4 %). The improvement in FTR over time was most pronounced at LV and IV hospitals versus HV hospitals ( P  = 0.001). Conclusion Median hospital volume for pancreatic surgery has increased over the past decade. While the morbidity remained relatively stable over time, mortality improved especially in LV and IV hospitals. This improvement in mortality seems to be related to a decreased FTR.

Background Centralization of hepatopancreatobiliary procedures to more experienced centers has been recommended but remains controversial. Hospital volume and risk-stratified mortality rates (RSMR) are metrics for interhospital comparison. We compared facility operative volume with facility RSMR as a proxy for hospital quality. Patients and Methods Patients who underwent surgery for liver (LC), biliary tract (BTC), and pancreatic (PDAC) cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004–2018). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to create facility-specific models for RSMR. Volume (high versus low) was determined by quintile. Performance (high versus low) was determined by RSMR tercile. Primary outcomes included median facility RSMR and RSMR distributions. Volume- and RSMR-based redistribution was simulated and compared for reductions in 90-day mortality. Results A total of 106,217 patients treated at 1282 facilities were included; 17,695 had LC, 23,075 had BTC, and 65,447 had PDAC. High-volume centers (HVC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-volume centers and low-volume centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p  < 0.001). High-performance centers (HPC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-performance centers and low-performance centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p  < 0.001). Volume-based redistribution required 16.0 patients for LC, 11.2 for BTC, and 14.9 for PDAC reassigned to 15, 22, and 20 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. RSMR-based redistribution required 4.7 patients for LC, 4.2 for BTC, and 4.9 for PDAC reassigned to 316, 403, and 418 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. Conclusions HVC and HPC have the lowest overall and risk-standardized 90-day mortality after oncologic hepatopancreatobiliary procedures, but RSMR may outperform volume as a measure of hospital quality.

The association between hospital volume and outcome following high-risk low volume cancer surgery is well documented. However, this association is not well understood in cancer patients undergoing non-surgical therapies. We explored this association in a cohort of newly diagnosed patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Data from the 2000 through 2011 in Texas Cancer Registry were used to study adults with newly diagnosed HCC (17,231 patients from 322 hospitals). Hospital volume was stratified into low and high volume using Contal's outcome-based method. A multivariable Cox regression with shared frailty was used to evaluate the association between hospital volume and overall survival. The relationship between treatment modality and hospital volume was explored using mixed effects logistic regression. The majority (61%) of HCC patients were seen in 21 high-volume hospitals. An annual hospital volume cutoff point of 24 patients was determined to stratify between high- and low-volume hospitals. Patients at high-volume hospitals presented more commonly with localized disease (56 vs. 50%, P<0.01) and were more likely to receive curative therapies including surgical resection, liver transplantation, or ablation (22 vs. 12%, P<0.01). High-volume hospitals were significantly associated with improved survival (HR=0.96, 95% CI=0.94-0.98). In multivariable analysis, hospital volume was associated with increased overall treatment utilization (OR=1.3, 95% CI=1.2-1.4). Hospital volume is associated with improved overall survival, particularly in localized HCC. Improved survival may be mediated by increased utilization of treatments in high HCC volume hospitals.

Background The objective of the current study was to characterize the association between travel distance/hospital volume relative to outcomes following resection of cholangiocarcinoma. Methods Patients were identified using the 2004–2015 National Cancer Database and stratified into quartiles according to travel distance/hospital volume. Multivariable regression models were utilized to examine the impact of travel distance and hospital volume on quality-of-care metrics and overall survival. Results Among 5125 patients, the majority of patients had T1/2 ( N  = 2006, 41.1%) and N0 disease ( N  = 2498, 50.9%). Median hospital quartile surgical volumes in cases/year were low volume (LV) 6, intermediate low volume (ILV) 7, intermediate high volume (IHV) 12, and high volume (HV) 24 cases/year. Median travel distance quartiles in miles were short travel (ST) 2.7, intermediate short travel (IST) 7.9, intermediate long travel (ILT) 18.9, and long travel (LT) 84.7. Longer travel distances were associated with better overall survival, as every 10 miles was associated with a 2% decrease in mortality ( p  = 0.02). Differences in quality-of-care metrics were largely mediated through travel distance. Conclusions Travel distance and hospital volume were associated with certain quality-of-care metrics among patients with cholangiocarcinoma. After controlling for hospital volume and travel distance simultaneously, only travel distance was associated with decreased risk of mortality.

Background The impact of surgical volume on perioperative results after a paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair has not yet been analyzed. We sought to characterize the trend of utilization of this procedure stratified by surgical volume in the USA, and analyze its impact on perioperative outcomes. Methods A retrospective population-based analysis was performed using the National Inpatient Sample for the period 2000–2013. Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent PEH repair were included. Surgical volume was categorized as small (<6 operations/year), intermediate (6–20 operations/year), or high (>20 operations/year). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the effect of surgical volume on patient outcomes. Results A total of 63,812 patients were included. Over time, the rate of procedures across high-volume centers increased from 65.8 to 94.4%. The use of the laparoscopic approach was significantly different among the groups (small volume 38.4%; intermediate volume 41.8%; high volume 67.4%; p  < 0.0001). Patients undergoing PEH repair at high-volume hospitals were less likely to experience postoperative bleeding, cardiac failure, respiratory failure, and shock. On average, patients at low- and intermediate-volume hospitals stayed 0.8 and 0.6 days longer, respectively. Conclusions A spontaneous centralization towards high-volume centers for PEH repair has occurred in the last decade. This trend is beneficial for patients as it is associated with higher rates of laparoscopic operations, decreased surgical morbidity, and a shorter length of hospital stay.

Background Data evaluating the financial implications of volume-based referral are lacking. This study sought to compare in-hospital costs for pancreatic surgery by annual hospital volume. Methods Eleven thousand and eighty-one patients aged ≥18 years undergoing an elective pancreatic resection for cancer were identified using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2002–2011. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to compare length-of-stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity and mortality, failure-to-rescue (FTR), and inpatient costs by annual hospital volume group. Results Patients undergoing surgery at high-volume hospitals (HVH) demonstrated 23% lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.63–0.95) of developing a postoperative complication, 59% lower odds of experiencing an LOS > 14 days (OR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.34–0.50), 51% lower odds of postoperative mortality (OR = 0.49, 95%CI 0.34–0.71), and 47% lower odds of FTR (OR = 0.53, 95%CI 0.37–0.76; all p<0.05). The overall mean in-hospital cost was $39,012 (SD = $15,214) with minimal differences observed across hospital volume groups. Rather, postoperative complications (no complication vs. complication $26,686 [SD = $5762] vs. $44,633 [SD = $11,637]) and FTR (rescue vs. FTR $42,413 [SD = $8481] vs. $69,546 [SD = $13,131]) were determinant of higher in-hospital costs. While this pattern was observed at all hospital volume groups, costs varied minimally between hospital volume groups after this stratification. Conclusions Annual hospital surgical volume was not associated with in-hospital costs among patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.

BackgroundOutcomes for pancreatic resection have been studied extensively due to the high morbidity and mortality rates, with high-volume centers achieving superior outcomes. Ongoing investigations include healthcare costs, given the national focus on reducing expenditures. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the relationships between pancreatic surgery costs with perioperative outcomes and volume status.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 27,653 patients who underwent elective pancreatic resections from October 2013 to June 2017 using the Vizient database. Costs were calculated from charges using cost–charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation. Generalized linear modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and operation characteristics was performed to assess the relationships between cost and length of stay, complications, in-hospital mortality, readmissions, and hospital volume. High-volume centers were defined as hospitals performing ≥ 19 operations annually.ResultsThe unadjusted mean cost for pancreatic resection and corresponding hospitalization was $20,352. There were no differences in mean costs for pancreatectomies performed at high- and low-volume centers [− $1175, 95% confidence interval (CI) − $3254 to $904, p = 0.27]. In subgroup analysis comparing adjusted mean costs at high- and low-volume centers, there was no difference among patients without an adverse outcome (− $99, 95% CI − $1612 to 1414, p = 0.90), one or more adverse outcomes (− $1586, 95% CI − $4771 to 1599, p = 0.33), or one or more complications (− $2835, 95% CI − $7588 to 1919, p = 0.24).ConclusionsWhile high-volume hospitals have fewer adverse outcomes, there is no relationship between surgical volume and costs, which suggests that, in itself, surgical volume is not an indicator of improved healthcare efficiency reflected by lower costs. Patient referral to high-volume centers may not reduce overall healthcare expenditures for pancreatic operations.

Background Neoadjuvant chemoradiation reduces local recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer, and adherence to national and societal recommendations remains unknown. Objective To determine variability in guideline adherence in rectal cancer treatment and investigate whether hospital volume correlated with variability seen. Design We performed a retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database rectal cancer participant user files from 2005 to 2010. Stage-specific predictors of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation use were determined, and variation in use across hospitals analyzed. Hospitals were ranked based on likelihood of preoperative therapy use by stage, and observed-to-expected ratios for neoadjuvant therapy use calculated. Hospital outliers were identified, and their center characteristics compared. Results A total of 23,488 patients were identified at 1183 hospitals. There was substantial variability in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation across hospitals. Patients managed outside clinical guidelines for both stage 1 and stage 3 disease tended to receive treatment at lower-volume, community cancer centers. Conclusions There is substantial variability in adherence to national guidelines in the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer across all stages. Both hospital volume and center type are associated with over-treatment of early-stage tumors and under-treatment of more invasive tumors. These findings identify a clear need for national quality improvement efforts in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Processes of care are potential determinants of outcomes in patients with severe sepsis. Whether hospitals with more experience caring for patients with severe sepsis also have improved outcomes is unclear. To determine associations between hospital severe sepsis caseload and outcomes. We analyzed data from U.S. academic hospitals provided through University HealthSystem Consortium. We used University HealthSystem Consortium's sepsis mortality model (c-statistic, 0.826) for risk adjustment. Validated International Classification of Disease, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification algorithms were used to identify hospital severe sepsis case volume. Associations between risk-adjusted severe sepsis case volume and mortality, length of stay, and costs were analyzed using spline regression and analysis of covariance. We identified 56,997 patients with severe sepsis admitted to 124 U.S. academic hospitals during 2011. Hospitals admitted 460 ± 216 patients with severe sepsis, with median length of stay 12.5 days (interquartile range, 11.1-14.2), median direct costs $26,304 (interquartile range, $21,900-$32,090), and average hospital mortality 25.6 ± 5.3%. Higher severe sepsis case volume was associated with lower unadjusted severe sepsis mortality (R2 = 0.10, P = 0.01) and risk-adjusted severe sepsis mortality (R2 = 0.21, P < 0.001). After further adjustment for geographic region, number of beds, and long-term acute care referrals, hospitals in the highest severe sepsis case volume quartile had an absolute 7% (95% confidence interval, 2.4-11.6%) lower hospital mortality than hospitals in the lowest quartile. We did not identify associations between case volume and resource use. Academic hospitals with higher severe sepsis case volume have lower severe sepsis hospital mortality without higher costs.