Quality Assurance Compound Level Metrics in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: Proof by Prognosis Rather Than Postoperative Mortality

2019 ◽  
Vol 229 (4) ◽  
pp. e203
Author(s):  
Arfon G. Powell ◽  
David Robinson ◽  
Chris Brown ◽  
Luke Hopkins ◽  
Richard J. Egan ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 135581962110089
Author(s):  
Roberto Grilli ◽  
Federica Violi ◽  
Maria Chiara Bassi ◽  
Massimiliano Marino

Objectives To review the evidence of the effects of centralization of cancer surgery on postoperative mortality. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane and Scopus (up to November 2019) for studies that (i) assessed the effects of centralization of cancer surgery policies on in-hospital or 30-day mortality, or (ii) described changes in both postoperative mortality for a surgical intervention and degree of centralization using reduction in the number of hospitals or increases in the proportion of patients undergoing cancer surgery at high volume hospitals as proxy. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We estimated pooled odds ratios (OR) and conducted meta-regression to assess the relationship between degree of centralization and mortality. Results A total of 41 studies met our inclusion criteria of which 15 evaluated the effect of centralization policies on postoperative mortality after cancer surgery and 26 described concurrent changes in the degree of centralization and postoperative mortality. Policy evaluation studies mainly used before-after designs (n = 13) or interrupted time series analysis (n = 2), mainly focusing on pancreatic, oesophageal and gastric cancer. All but one showed some degree of reduction in postoperative mortality, with statistically significant effects demonstrated by six studies. The pooled odds ratio for centralization policy effect was 0.68 (95% Confidence interval: 0.54–0.85; I2 = 80%). Meta-regression analysis of the 26 descriptive studies found that an increase of the proportion of patients treated at high volume hospitals was associated with greater reduction in postoperative mortality. Conclusions Centralization of cancer surgery is associated with reduced postoperative mortality. However, existing evidence tends to be of low quality and estimates of the effect size are likely inflated. There is a need for prospective studies using more robust approaches, and for centralization efforts to be accompanied by well-designed evaluations of their effectiveness.


The Lancet ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 397 (10272) ◽  
pp. 387-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R Knight ◽  
Catherine A Shaw ◽  
Riinu Pius ◽  
Thomas M Drake ◽  
Lisa Norman ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 1004-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan L. Dikken ◽  
Anneriet E. Dassen ◽  
Valery E.P. Lemmens ◽  
Hein Putter ◽  
Pieta Krijnen ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 259 (5) ◽  
pp. 844-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Henneman ◽  
Annelotte C. M. van Bommel ◽  
Alexander Snijders ◽  
Heleen S. Snijders ◽  
Rob A. E. M. Tollenaar ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Nicholas RS Stratford ◽  
Conor F. Murphy ◽  
Jessie A. Elliott ◽  
John V. Reynolds ◽  
Carel W. le Roux

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (13) ◽  
pp. 4445-4452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostan W. Reisinger ◽  
Joanna W. A. M. Bosmans ◽  
Martine Uittenbogaart ◽  
Abdulaziz Alsoumali ◽  
Martijn Poeze ◽  
...  

JAMA Surgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 154 (5) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
Enrico Maria Minnella ◽  
Lorenzo Ferri ◽  
Francesco Carli

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (34) ◽  
pp. 3234-3242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle H. Sheetz ◽  
Justin B. Dimick ◽  
Hari Nathan

PURPOSE Centralization is often proposed as a strategy to improve the quality of certain high-risk health care services. We evaluated the extent to which existing hospital systems centralize high-risk cancer surgery and whether centralization is associated with short-term clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS We merged data from the American Hospital Association’s annual survey on hospital system affiliation with Medicare claims to identify patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic, esophageal, colon, lung, or rectal cancer between 2005 and 2014. We calculated the degree to which systems centralized each procedure by calculating the annual proportion of surgeries performed at the highest-volume hospital within each system. We then estimated the independent effect of centralization on the incidence of postoperative complications, death, and readmissions after accounting for patient, hospital, and system characteristics. RESULTS The average degree of centralization varied from 25.2% (range, 6.6% to 100%) for colectomy to 71.2% (range, 8.3% to 100%) for pancreatectomy. Greater centralization was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications and death for lung resection, esophagectomy, and pancreatectomy. For example, there was a 1.1% (95% CI, 0.8% to 1.4%) absolute reduction in 30-day mortality after pancreatectomy for each 20% increase in the degree of centralization within systems. Independent of volume and hospital quality, postoperative mortality for pancreatectomy was two times higher in the least centralized systems than in the most centralized systems (8.9% v 3.7%, P < .01). Centralization was not associated with better outcomes for colectomy or proctectomy. CONCLUSION Greater centralization of complex cancer surgery within existing hospital systems was associated with better outcomes. As hospitals affiliate in response to broader financial and organization pressures, these systems may also present unique opportunities to improve the quality of high-risk cancer care.


2015 ◽  
Vol 262 (5) ◽  
pp. 817-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Messager ◽  
Arnaud Pasquer ◽  
Alain Duhamel ◽  
Gilbert Caranhac ◽  
Guillaume Piessen ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 4525-4532 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. W. Kauff ◽  
N. Wachter ◽  
R. Bettzieche ◽  
H. Lang ◽  
W. Kneist

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document