What underlies the observed hospital volume-outcome relationship?

Background Studies of the hospital volume-outcome relationship have highlighted that a greater volume activity improves patient outcomes. While this finding has been known for years, most studies to date have failed to delve into what underlies this relationship. Objective This study aimed to shed light on the basis of the hospital volume effect on patient outcomes by comparing treatment modalities for epithelial ovarian carcinoma patients. Data An exhaustive dataset of 355 patients in first-line treatment for Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma (EOC) in 2012 in three regions of France was used. These regions account for 15% of the metropolitan French population. Methods In the presence of endogeneity induced by a reverse causality between hospital volume and patient outcomes, we used an instrumental variable approach. Hospital volume of activity was instrumented by the distance from patients’ homes to their hospital, the population density, and the median net income of patient municipalities. Results Based on our parameter estimates, we found that the rate of complete tumor resection would increase by 15.5 percentage points with centralized care, and by 8.3 percentage points if treatment decisions were coordinated by high-volume centers compared to decentralized care. Conclusion As volume alone is an imperfect correlate of quality, policy-makers need to know what volume is a proxy for in order to devise volume-based policies.

Outcome of esophageal atresia: inborn versus outborn patients

Summary Esophageal atresia (EA) is a rare congenital disease which is usually not of the detected prenatally. Due to the lack of prenatal diagnosis, some newborns with EA are born outside of specialized centers. Nevertheless, centralized care of EA has been proposed, even if a clear volume–outcome association in EA management remains unconfirmed. Furthermore, whether outcomes differ between outborn and inborn patients with EA has not been systematically investigated. Therefore, this single-center, retrospective study aimed to investigate EA management and outcomes with a special focus on inborn versus outborn patients. The following data were extracted from the medical records of infants with EA from 2009 to 2019: EA type, associated anomalies, complications, and long-term outcome. Patients were allocated into inborn and outborn groups. Altogether, 57 patients were included. Five patients were excluded (referral before surgery, loss of data, death before surgery [n = 1], and incorrect diagnosis [diverticulum, n = 1]). Among all patients, the overall survival rate was 96%, with no mortalities among outborn patients. The overall hospitalization period was shorter for outborn patients. The median follow-up durations were 3.8 years and 3.2 years for inborn and outborn patients, respectively. Overall, 15% of patients underwent delayed primary anastomosis (long-gap atresia [n = 4] and other reasons [n = 4]). Early complications included three anastomotic leakages and one post-operative fistula; 28% of patients developed strictures, which required dilatation, and 38% of patients showed relevant gastroesophageal reflux, which required fundoplication, without any differences between the groups. The two groups had comparable low mortality and expected high morbidity with no significant differences in outcome. The outborn group showed nonsignificant trends toward lower morbidity and shorter hospitalization periods, which might be explained by the overall better clinical status.

Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks

The mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Delays in the recognition of CS and access to disease-modifying or hemodynamically stabilizing interventions likely contribute to poor outcomes. In parallel to successful initiatives in other disease states, such as acute ST-elevation MI and major trauma, institutions are increasingly advocating the use of a multidisciplinary ‘shock team’ approach to CS management. A volume–outcome relationship exists in CS, as with many other acute cardiovascular conditions, and the emergence of ‘shock hubs’ as experienced facilities with an interest in improving CS outcomes through a hub-and-spoke ‘shock network’ approach provides another opportunity to deliver improved CS care as widely and equitably as possible. This narrative review outlines improvements from a networked approach to care, discusses a team-based and protocolized approach to CS management, reviews the available evidence and discusses the potential benefits, challenges, and opportunities of such systems of care.

Minimally Invasive Surgery and Surgical Volume-Specific Survival and Perioperative Outcome: Unmet Need for Evidence in Gynecologic Malignancy

This study examined the effect of hospital surgical volume on oncologic outcomes in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic malignancies. The objectives were to assess survival outcomes related to hospital surgical volume and to evaluate perioperative outcomes and examine non-gynecologic malignancies. Literature available from the PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed. All surgical procedures including gynecologic surgery with hospital surgical volume information were eligible for analysis. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, and nine gastro-intestinal studies, seven genitourinary studies, four gynecological studies, two hepatobiliary studies, and one thoracic study were reviewed. Of those, 11 showed a positive volume–outcome association for perioperative outcomes. A study on MIS for ovarian cancer reported lower surgical morbidity in high-volume centers. Two studies were on endometrial cancer, of which one showed lower treatment costs in high-volume centers and the other showed no association with perioperative morbidity. Another study examined robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and found no volume–outcome association for surgical morbidity. There were no gynecologic studies examining the association between hospital surgical volume and oncologic outcomes in MIS. The volume–outcome association for oncologic outcome in gynecologic MIS is understudied. This lack of evidence calls for further studies to address this knowledge gap.

Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review

Introduction Many recent studies have investigated the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery. In some cases, the results have prompted the centralization of surgical activity. However, the methodologies and interpretations differ markedly from one study to another. The objective of the present scoping review was to describe the various features used to assess the volume-outcome relationship: the analyzed datasets, study population, outcome, covariates, confounders, volume modalities, and statistical methods. Methods and analysis The review was conducted according to a study protocol published in BMJ Open in 2020. Two authors (both of whom had helped to design the study protocol) screened publications independently according to the title, the abstract and then the full text. To ensure exhaustivity, all the papers included by each reviewer went through to the next step. Interpretation The 403 included studies covered 90 types of surgery, 61 types of outcome, and 72 covariates or potential confounders. 191 (47.5%) studies focussed on oncological surgery and 37.8% focussed visceral or digestive tract surgery. Overall, 86.6% of the studies found a statistically significant volume-outcome relationship, although the findings differed from one type of surgery to another. Furthermore, the types of outcome and the covariates were highly diverse. The majority of studies were performed in Western countries, and oncological and visceral surgical procedures were over-represented; this might limit the generalizability and comparability of the studies’ results.