Variation in outcomes across surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standard for complex oncologic surgery.

A large body of evidence supports regionalization of complex oncologic surgery to high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals. However, whether there is heterogeneity of outcomes among high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals remains unknown. Patients who underwent esophagectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy for primary cancer were identified within the Medicare 100% Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Mixed-effects analyses assessed the association between Leapfrog annual volume standards for surgeons (esophagectomy ≥7, lung resection ≥15, pancreatectomy ≥10, proctectomy ≥6) and hospitals (esophagectomy ≥20, lung resection ≥40, pancreatectomy ≥20, proctectomy ≥16) relative to postoperative complications and 90-day mortality. Additional analyses using New York's all-payer Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2004-2015) were performed. Among 112,154 Medicare beneficiaries, high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals were associated with lower adjusted odds of complications (esophagectomy: odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.86]; lung resection: OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.80]; proctectomy: OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]) and 90-day mortality (esophagectomy: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; lung resection: OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.56-0.76]; proctectomy: OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65-0.85]). For the average patient at the average high-volume hospital, there was a 2-fold difference in the adjusted complication rate between the best-performing and worst-performing high-volume surgeon for all operations (esophagectomy, 28%-55%; lung resection, 7%-21%; pancreatectomy, 16%-35%; proctectomy, 16%-28%). Wide variation was also present in adjusted 90-day mortality for esophagectomy (3.5%-9.3%). Results from New York's all-payer database were similar. Even among high-volume surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standards, wide variation in postoperative outcomes exists. These findings suggest that volume alone should not be used as a quality indicator, and quality metrics should be continuously evaluated across all surgeons and hospital systems. Previous studies have demonstrated a surgical volume-outcome relationship for high-risk operations-that is high-volume surgeons and hospitals that perform a specific surgical procedure more frequently have better outcomes for that operation. Although most high-volume surgeons had better outcomes, this study demonstrated that some high-volume surgeons did not have better outcomes. Therefore, volume is an important factor but should not be the only factor considered when assessing the quality of a surgeon and a hospital for cancer surgery.

Aquina CT ，Becerra AZ ，Fleming FJ ，Cloyd JM ，Tsung A ，Pawlik TM ，Ejaz A ... -  《-》

Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.

Sheetz KH ，Chhabra KR ，Smith ME ，Dimick JB ，Nathan H ... -  《-》

Variation in value among hospitals performing complex cancer operations.

While variation in outcomes has driven centralization of complex cancer surgery, variation in cost and value remains unexplored. We evaluated outcomes relative to cost among hospitals performing esophageal and pancreatic resection for cancer. Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing elective esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer from 2014 to 2016. Risk- and reliability-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days post discharge, as well as risk- and reliability-adjusted complication rates for each hospital, were calculated. Hospitals were separated into quintiles relative to payments and outcomes. Highest-value hospitals were defined as hospitals in the top 2 quartiles for both cost and outcomes. Among 11,586 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a complex oncologic operation between 2014 and 2016, 66% had a pancreatic neoplasm, while 33% had an esophageal neoplasm. Overall, 31.1% patients underwent an operation at a high-value hospital. Among patients who underwent pancreatectomy, the risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 31.4% at the lowest-value hospitals vs 22.7% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.70). The esophagectomy, risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 48.3% at lowest-value hospitals versus 29.8% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.47). The average difference in episode cost of care for an esophagectomy at lowest- versus highest-value hospitals was $5,617; the difference for pancreatectomy was $2,748. There was wide variation in complication rates and average costs among lowest- versus highest-value hospitals performing esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer. Even among highest quality hospitals, wide variation in average episode costs was noted. Surgeons should seek to better understand practice variation to standardize care and decrease variation in outcomes, utilization, and costs.

Diaz A ，Paredes AZ ，Hyer JM ，Pawlik TM ... -  《-》

Quality of Care Among Medicare Patients Undergoing Pancreatic Surgery: Safety Grade, Magnet Recognition, and Leapfrog Minimum Volume Standards-Which Quality Benchmark Matters?

Merath K ，Mehta R ，Tsilimigras DI ，Farooq A ，Sahara K ，Paredes AZ ，Wu L ，Moro A ，Ejaz A ，Dillhoff M ，Cloyd J ，Tsung A ，Pawlik TM ... -  《-》

Association of social vulnerability with the use of high-volume and Magnet recognition hospitals for hepatopancreatic cancer surgery.

In an effort to improve perioperative and oncologic outcomes, there have been multiple quality improvement initiatives, including regionalization of high-risk procedures and hospital accreditation designations from independent organizations. These initiatives may, however, hinder access to high-quality surgical care for certain patients living in areas with high social vulnerability who may be disproportionally affected, leading to disparities in access and worse postoperative outcomes. Medicare beneficiaries who underwent liver or pancreas resection for cancer were identified using the 100% Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Hospitals were designated as high-volume based on Leapfrog criteria. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's social vulnerability index database was used to abstract social vulnerability index information based on each beneficiary's county of residence at the time of operation. The probability that a patient received care at a high-volume hospital stratified by the social vulnerability of the patient's county of residence was examined. Risk-adjusted postoperative outcomes were compared across low, average, and high levels of vulnerability at both low- and high-volume hospitals. Among 16,978 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pancreatectomy (n = 13,393, 78%) or a liver resection (n = 3,594, 21.2%) for cancer, the mean age was 73.3 years (standard deviation: 5.8), nearly half the cohort was female (n = 7,819, 46%), and the overwhelming majority were White (n = 15,034, 88.5%). Mean social vulnerability index was 49.8 (standard deviation 24.8) and mean Charlson comorbidity index was 4.8 (standard deviation: 3). Overall, 8,251 (48.6%) of patients had their operations at a high-volume hospital, and 3,802 patients had their operations at a hospital with Magnet recognition. Age and sex were similar within the low-, average-, and high-social vulnerability index cohorts (P > .05); however, race differed across social vulnerability index groups. White patients made up 93% (n = 3,241) of the low social vulnerability index compared with 83.9% (n = 2,706) of the high-social vulnerability index group, whereas non-Whites made up 7% (n = 244) of the low-social vulnerability index group compared with 16.1% (n = 556) of the high-social vulnerability index group (P < .001). The risk-adjusted overall probability of having surgery at a high-volume hospital decreased as social vulnerability increased (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-0.99). Risk-adjusted probability of postoperative complications increased with social vulnerability index; however, among patients with high social vulnerability, risk of postoperative complications was lower at high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals. In contrast, there was no difference in postoperative complications between hospitals with and without Magnet recognition across social vulnerability index. Patients residing in communities characterized by a high social vulnerability index were less likely to undergo high-risk cancer surgery at a high-volume hospital. Although postoperative complications and mortality increased as social vulnerability index increased, some of the risk appeared to be mitigated by having surgery at a high-volume hospital. These data highlight the importance of access to high-quality surgical care, especially among patients who may already be more vulnerable.

Diaz A ，Hyer JM ，Azap R ，Tsilimigras D ，Pawlik TM ... -  《-》