Search

Importance: Measures of surgeons' skills have been associated with variations in short-term outcomes after laparoscopic gastric bypass. However, the effect of surgical skill on long-term outcomes after bariatric surgery is unknown., Objective: To study the association between surgical skill and long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective observational study, 20 surgeons performing bariatric surgery submitted videos; surgeons were ranked on their skill level through blinded peer video review and sorted into quartiles of skill. Outcomes of bariatric surgery were then examined at the patient level across skill levels. The patients (N = 3631) undergoing surgery with these surgeons had 1-year postoperative follow-up data available between 2006 and 2012. The study was conducted using the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative, a prospective clinical registry of 40 hospitals performing bariatric surgery in the state of Michigan., Exposure: Surgeon skill level., Main Outcomes and Measures: Excess body weight loss at 1 year; resolution of medical comorbidities (hypertension, sleep apnea, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia), functional status, and patient satisfaction., Results: Surgeons in the top and bottom quartiles had each been practicing for a mean of 11 years. Peer ratings of surgical skill varied from 2.6 to 4.8 on a 5-point scale. There was no difference between the best (top 25%) and worst (bottom 25%) performance quartiles when comparing excess body weight loss (67.2% vs 68.5%; P = .86) at 1 year. There were no differences in resolution of sleep apnea (62.6% vs 62.0%; P = .77), hypertension (47.1% vs 45.4%; P = .73), or hyperlipidemia (52.3% vs 63.4%; P = .45). Surgeons with the lowest skill rating had patients with higher rates of diabetes resolution (78.8%) when compared with the high-skill group (72.8%) (P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: In contrast to its effect on early complications, surgical skill did not affect postoperative weight loss or resolution of medical comorbidities at 1 year after laparoscopic gastric bypass. These findings suggest that long-term outcomes after bariatric surgery may be less dependent on a surgeon's operative skill and instead be driven by other factors. Operative technique was not assessed in this analysis and should be considered in future studies.

Background: Morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery have high rates of gastroesophageal reflux and are often treated with acid-reducing medications (ARM) such as proton pump inhibitors or H2-blockers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of bariatric procedures on the utilization of ARM. We analyzed data from the clinical registry of the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative on 35,477 patients undergoing bariatric surgery between January 2006 and October 2012 who completed both baseline and 1-year follow-up surveys. Procedures included laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB, n=2,627), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB, n=6,410), sleeve gastrectomy (SG, n=1,567), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD/DS, n=162)., Methods: Rates of ARM at 1 year by procedure type were compared using logistic regression analysis. Models were adjusted for patient characteristics, baseline co-morbidities, weight loss, and hiatal hernia repair., Results: Overall ARM use at baseline was 37.7% and declined to 29.6% at 1 year after bariatric surgery. The proportion of patients starting an ARM at 1 year when they were not using one at baseline by procedure was LAGB (13.9%), RYGB (19.2%), SG (21.6%), and BPD/DS (26.7%). The proportion of patients discontinuing an ARM at 1 year when they were using one at baseline by procedure was LAGB (55.6%), RYGB (56.2%), SG (37.3%), and BPD/DS (42.1%). Compared with LAGB on multivariable analysis, the likelihood of ARM use at 1 year was higher for SG (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.45-1.99) and BDP/DS (OR 1.53, CI .97-2.40) but not different for RYGB (OR 1.02, CI .90-1.16)., Conclusion: Overall ARM use decreases after bariatric surgery; however, it is not uniform and depends on procedure type. SG is a significant predictor for ARM use at 1 year., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The optimal approach for profiling hospital performance with bariatric surgery is unclear., Objective: To develop a novel composite measure for profiling hospital performance with bariatric surgery., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using clinical registry data from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative, we studied all patients undergoing bariatric surgery from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2010. For laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery, we used empirical Bayes techniques to create a composite measure by combining several measures, including serious complications, reoperations, and readmissions; hospital and surgeon volume; and outcomes with other related procedures. Hospitals were ranked for 2008 through 2009 and placed in 1 of 3 groups: 3-star (top 20%), 2-star (middle 60%), and 1-star (bottom 20%). We assessed how well these ratings predicted outcomes in the next year (2010) compared with other widely used measures., Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted serious complications., Results: Composite measures explained a larger proportion of hospital-level variation in serious complication rates with laparoscopic gastric bypass than other measures. For example, the composite measure explained 89% of the variation compared with only 28% for risk-adjusted complication rates alone. Composite measures also appeared better at predicting future performance compared with individual measures. When ranked on the composite measure, 1-star hospitals had 2-fold higher serious complication rates (4.6% vs 2.4%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5) compared with 3-star hospitals. Differences in serious complication rates between 1- and 3-star hospitals were much smaller when hospitals were ranked using serious complications (4.0% vs 2.7%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.8-2.9) and hospital volume (3.3% vs 3.2%; odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.4-1.7)., Conclusions and Relevance: Composite measures are much better at explaining hospital-level variation in serious complications and predicting future performance than other approaches. In this preliminary study, it appears that such composite measures may be better than existing alternatives for profiling hospital performance with bariatric surgery.

Background: Clinical outcomes after many complex surgical procedures vary widely across hospitals and surgeons. Although it has been assumed that the proficiency of the operating surgeon is an important factor underlying such variation, empirical data are lacking on the relationships between technical skill and postoperative outcomes., Methods: We conducted a study involving 20 bariatric surgeons in Michigan who participated in a statewide collaborative improvement program. Each surgeon submitted a single representative videotape of himself or herself performing a laparoscopic gastric bypass. Each videotape was rated in various domains of technical skill on a scale of 1 to 5 (with higher scores indicating more advanced skill) by at least 10 peer surgeons who were unaware of the identity of the operating surgeon. We then assessed relationships between these skill ratings and risk-adjusted complication rates, using data from a prospective, externally audited, clinical-outcomes registry involving 10,343 patients., Results: Mean summary ratings of technical skill ranged from 2.6 to 4.8 across the 20 surgeons. The bottom quartile of surgical skill, as compared with the top quartile, was associated with higher complication rates (14.5% vs. 5.2%, P<0.001) and higher mortality (0.26% vs. 0.05%, P=0.01). The lowest quartile of skill was also associated with longer operations (137 minutes vs. 98 minutes, P<0.001) and higher rates of reoperation (3.4% vs. 1.6%, P=0.01) and readmission (6.3% vs. 2.7%) (P<0.001)., Conclusions: The technical skill of practicing bariatric surgeons varied widely, and greater skill was associated with fewer postoperative complications and lower rates of reoperation, readmission, and visits to the emergency department. Although these findings are preliminary, they suggest that peer rating of operative skill may be an effective strategy for assessing a surgeon's proficiency.

Background: The United States Food and Drug Administration recently issued a warning about adverse events in patients receiving inferior vena cava (IVC) filters., Objective: To assess relationships between IVC filter insertion and complications while controlling for differences in baseline patient characteristics and medical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis., Design: Propensity-matched cohort study., Setting: The prospective, statewide, clinical registry of the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative., Patients: Bariatric surgery patients (n=35,477) from 32 hospitals during the years 2006 through 2012., Intervention: Prophylactic IVC filter insertion., Measurements: Outcomes included the occurrence of complications (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and overall combined rates of complications by severity) within 30 days of bariatric surgery., Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the 1,077 patients with IVC filters and in 1,077 matched control patients. Patients receiving IVC filters had higher rates of pulmonary embolism (0.84% vs 0.46%; odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-6.5; P=0.232), deep vein thrombosis (1.2% vs 0.37%; OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1-10.1; P=0.039), venous thromboembolism (1.9% vs 0.74%; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3, P=0.027), serious complications (5.8% vs 3.8%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P=0.031), permanently disabling complications (1.2% vs 0.37%; OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.2-15.6; P=0.028), and death (0.7% vs 0.09%; OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 0.9-57.3; P=0.068). Of the 7 deaths among patients with IVC filters, 4 were attributable to pulmonary embolism and 2 to IVC thrombosis/occlusion., Conclusions: We have identified no benefits and significant risks to the use of prophylactic IVC filters among bariatric surgery patients and believe that their use should be discouraged., (Copyright © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Importance: Starting in 2006, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has restricted coverage of bariatric surgery to hospitals designated as centers of excellence (COE) by 2 major professional organizations., Objective: To evaluate whether the implementation of the COE component of the national coverage decision was associated with improved bariatric surgery outcomes in Medicare patients., Design, Setting, and Patients: Retrospective, longitudinal study using 2004-2009 hospital discharge data from 12 states (n = 321,464 patients) of changes in outcomes in Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery (n = 6723 before and n = 15,854 after implementation of the policy). A difference-in-differences analytic approach was used to evaluate whether the national coverage decision was associated with improved outcomes in Medicare patients above and beyond existing time trends in non-Medicare patients (n = 95,558 before and n = 155,117 after implementation of the policy)., Main Outcome Measures: Risk-adjusted rates of any complication, serious complications, and reoperation., Results: Bariatric surgery outcomes improved during the study period in both Medicare and non-Medicare patients; however, this change was already under way prior to the CMS coverage decision. After accounting for patient factors, changes in procedure type, and preexisting time trends toward improved outcomes, there were no statistically significant improvements in outcomes after (vs before) implementation of the CMS national coverage decision for any complication (8.0% after vs 7.0% before; relative risk [RR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.33]), serious complications (3.3% vs 3.6%, respectively; RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.62-1.22]), and reoperation (1.0% vs 1.1%; RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]). In a direct assessment comparing outcomes at hospitals designated as COEs (n = 179) vs hospitals without the COE designation (n = 519), no significant differences were found for any complication (5.5% vs 6.0%, respectively; RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.06]), serious complications (2.2% vs 2.5%; RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.00]), and reoperation (0.83% vs 0.96%; RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.17])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery, there was no significant difference in the rates of complications and reoperation before vs after the CMS policy of restricting coverage to COEs. Combined with prior studies showing no association of COE designation and outcomes, these results suggest that Medicare should reconsider this policy.

Objective: To assess relationships between safety culture and complications within 30 days of bariatric surgery., Background: Safety culture refers to the quality of teamwork, coordination, and communication, as well as responses to error in health care settings. Although safety culture is thought to be an important determinant of surgical outcomes, few studies have examined this empirically., Methods: We surveyed staff from 22 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide bariatric surgery collaborative. Each safety culture survey item was rated on a 1 to 5 Likert scale with lower scores representing better patient safety culture. These data were linked to clinical registry data for 24,117 bariatric surgery patients between 2007 and 2010. We used negative binomial regression to calculate incidence rates and incidence rate ratios measuring the increase in hospitals' rate of complications per unit increase in safety culture (individual items as well as hospital and operating room-specific subscales), controlling for patient risk factors, procedure mix, and bariatric procedure volume., Results: All 22 hospitals participated in this study, submitting safety culture ratings from 53 surgeons, 102 nurses, and 29 operating room administrators. Rates of serious complications were significantly lower among hospitals receiving an overall safety rating of excellent from nurses (1.5%), compared with those receiving a very good (2.6%) or acceptable (4.6%) rating (P = <0.0001). Surgeons' overall safety ratings were also associated with rates of serious complications (2.1% excellent, 2.6% very good, 4.7% acceptable, P = 0.011). Nurses' ratings of the hospital-specific subscale (P = 0.002) and surgeons' ratings of the operating room-specific subscale (P = 0.045) were also associated with rates of serious complications. Of the individual items, those related to coordination and communication between hospital units were the most strongly associated with rates of complications. Operating room administrator ratings of safety culture were not related to rates of complications for any of the domains of safety culture studied., Conclusions: Safety culture is associated with rates of serious surgical complications in bariatric surgery. Although nurses provide better information about hospital safety culture, surgeons are better judges of safety culture in the operating room. Interventions targeting safety culture, particularly coordination and communication, seem to be important for quality improvement.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 3 predominant venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis strategies among patients undergoing bariatric surgery., Design: Cohort study., Setting: The Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative, a statewide clinical registry and quality improvement program., Patients: Twenty-four thousand seven hundred seventy-seven patients undergoing bariatric surgery between 2007 and 2012., Interventions: Unfractionated heparin preoperatively and postoperatively (UF/UF), UF heparin preoperatively and low-molecular-weight heparin postoperatively (UF/LMW), and LMW heparin preoperatively and postoperatively (LMW/LMW)., Main Outcome Measures: Rates of VTE, hemorrhage, and serious hemorrhage (requiring >4 U of blood products or reoperation) occurring within 30 days of surgery., Results: Overall, adjusted rates of VTE were significantly lower for the LMW/LMW (0.25%; P < .001) and UF/LMW (0.29%; P = .03) treatment groups compared with the UF/UF group (0.68%). While UF/LMW (0.22%; P = .006) and LMW/LMW (0.21%; P < .001) were similarly effective in patients at low risk of VTE (predicted risk <1%), LMW/LMW (1.46%; P = .10) seemed more effective than UF/LMW (2.36%; P = .90) for high-risk (predicted risk ≥1%) patients. There were no significant differences in rates of hemorrhage or serious hemorrhage among the treatment strategies., Conclusion: Low-molecular-weight heparin is more effective than UF heparin for the prevention of postoperative VTE among patients undergoing bariatric surgery and does not increase rates of bleeding.

Objective: We sought to identify risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among patients undergoing bariatric surgery in Michigan., Background: VTE remains a major source of morbidity and mortality after bariatric surgery. It is unclear which factors should be used to identify patients at high risk for VTE., Methods: The Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative maintains a prospective clinical registry of bariatric surgery patients. For this study, we identified all patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery between June 2006 and April 2011 and determined rates of VTE. Potential risk factors for VTE were analyzed using a hierarchical logistic regression model, accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals. Significant risk factors were used to develop a risk calculator for development of VTE after bariatric surgery., Results: Among 27,818 patients who underwent bariatric surgery during the study period, 93 patients (0.33%) experienced a VTE complication, including 51 patents with pulmonary embolism. There were 8 associated deaths. Significant risk factors included previous history of VTE (OR 4.15, CI 2.42-7.08); male gender (OR 2.08, CI 1.36-3.19); operative time more than 3 hours (OR 1.86, CI 1.07-3.24); BMI category (per 10 units) (OR 1.37, CI 1.06-1.75); age category (per 10 years) (OR 1.25, CI 1.03-1.51); and procedure type (reference adjustable gastric band): duodenal switch (OR 9.45, CI 2.50-35.97); open gastric bypass (OR 6.48, CI 2.17-19.41); laparoscopic gastric bypass (OR 3.97, CI 1.77-8.91); and sleeve gastrectomy (OR 3.50, CI 1.30-9.34). Nearly 97% of patients had a predicted VTE risk less than 1%., Conclusions: In this population-based study, overall VTE rates were low among patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The use of an empirically based risk calculator will allow for the development of a risk-stratified approach to VTE prophylaxis.

Objectives: To develop a risk prediction model for serious complications after bariatric surgery., Background: Despite evidence for improved safety with bariatric surgery, serious complications remain a concern for patients, providers and payers. There is little population-level data on which risk factors can be used to identify patients at high risk for major morbidity., Methods: The Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative is a statewide consortium of hospitals and surgeons, which maintains an externally-audited prospective clinical registry. We analyzed data from 25,469 patients undergoing bariatric surgery between June 2006 and December 2010. Significant risk factors on univariable analysis were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors associated with serious complications (life threatening and/or associated with lasting disability) within 30 days of surgery. Bootstrap resampling was performed to obtain bias-corrected confidence intervals and c-statistic., Results: Overall, 644 patients (2.5%) experienced a serious complication. Significant risk factors (P < 0.05) included: prior VTE (odds ratio [OR] 1.90, confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.54); mobility limitations (OR 1.61, CI 1.23-2.13); coronary artery disease (OR 1.53, CI 1.17-2.02); age over 50 (OR 1.38, CI 1.18-1.61); pulmonary disease (OR 1.37, CI 1.15-1.64); male gender (OR 1.26, CI 1.06-1.50); smoking history (OR 1.20, CI 1.02-1.40); and procedure type (reference lap band): duodenal switch (OR 9.68, CI 6.05-15.49); laparoscopic gastric bypass (OR 3.58, CI 2.79-4.64); open gastric bypass (OR 3.51, CI 2.38-5.22); sleeve gastrectomy (OR 2.46, CI 1.73-3.50). The c-statistic was 0.68 (bias-corrected to 0.66) and the model was well-calibrated across deciles of predicted risk., Conclusions: We have developed and validated a population-based risk scoring system for serious complications after bariatric surgery. We expect that this scoring system will improve the process of informed consent, facilitate the selection of procedures for high-risk patients, and allow for better risk stratification across studies of bariatric surgery.

Context: Despite the growing popularity of bariatric surgery, there remain concerns about perioperative safety and variation in outcomes across hospitals., Objective: To assess complication rates of different bariatric procedures and variability in rates of serious complications across hospitals and according to procedure volume and center of excellence (COE) status., Design, Setting, and Patients: Involving 25 hospitals and 62 surgeons statewide, the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative (MBSC) administers an externally audited, prospective clinical registry. We evaluated short-term morbidity in 15,275 Michigan patients undergoing 1 of 3 common bariatric procedures between 2006 and 2009. We used multilevel regression models to assess variation in risk-adjusted complication rates across hospitals and the effects of procedure volume and COE designation (by the American College of Surgeons or American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery) status., Main Outcome Measure: Complications occurring within 30 days of surgery., Results: Overall, 7.3% of patients experienced perioperative complications, most of which were wound problems and other minor complications. Serious complications were most common after gastric bypass (3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2%-4.0%), followed by sleeve gastrectomy (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.2%-3.2%), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.6%-1.1%) procedures (P < .001). Mortality occurred in 0.04% (95% CI, 0.001%-0.13%) of laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, 0 sleeve gastrectomy, and 0.14% (95% CI, 0.08%-0.25%) of the gastric bypass patients. After adjustment for patient characteristics and procedure mix, rates of serious complications varied from 1.6% (95% CI, 1.3-2.0) to 3.5% (95% CI, 2.4-5.0) (risk difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.08-3.7) across hospitals. Average annual procedure volume was inversely associated with rates of serious complications at both the hospital level (< 150 cases, 4.1%; 95% CI, 3.0%-5.1%; 150-299 cases, 2.7%; 95% CI, 2.2-3.2; and > or = 300 cases, 2.3%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.6%; P = .003) and surgeon level (< 100 cases, 3.8%; 95% CI, 3.2%-4.5%; 100-249 cases, 2.4%; 95% CI, 2.1%-2.8%; > or = 250 cases, 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%; P = .001). Adjusted rates of serious complications were similar in COE and non-COE hospitals (COE, 2.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-3.1%; non-COE, 2.0%; 95% CI, 1.5%-2.4%; P = .41)., Conclusions: The frequency of serious complications among patients undergoing bariatric surgery in Michigan was relatively low. Rates of serious complications are inversely associated with hospital and surgeon procedure volume, but unrelated to COE accreditation by professional organizations.

Background Evidence suggests that prolonged operative time adversely affects surgical outcomes. However, whether faster surgeons have better outcomes is unclear, as a surgeon׳s speed could reflect skill and efficiency, but may alternatively reflect haste. This study evaluates whether median surgeon operative time is associated with adverse surgical outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using statewide clinical registry data from the years 2006 to 2012. Surgeons were ranked by their median operative time and grouped into terciles. Multivariable logistic regression with robust standard errors was used to evaluate the influence of median surgeon operative time on 30-day surgical outcomes, adjusting for patient and surgeon characteristics, trainee involvement, concurrent procedures, and the complex interaction between these variables. Results A total of 16,344 patients underwent surgery during the study period. Compared to surgeons in the fastest tercile, slow surgeons required 53 additional minutes to complete a gastric bypass procedure (median [interquartile range] 139 [133–150] versus 86 [69–91], P <.001). After adjustment for patient characteristic only, slow surgeons had significantly higher adjusted rates of any complication, prolonged length of stay, emergency department visits or readmissions, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). After further adjustment for surgeon characteristics, resident involvement, and the interaction between these variables, slow surgeons had higher rates of any complication (10.5% versus 7.1%, P = .039), prolonged length of stay (14.0% versus 4.4%, P = .002), and VTE (0.39% versus .22%, P < .001). Conclusion Median surgeon operative duration is independently associated with adjusted rates of certain adverse outcomes after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Improving surgeon efficiency while operating may reduce operative time and improve the safety of bariatric surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although resident involvement has been shown to be safe for most procedures, the impact of residents on outcomes after complex laparoscopic procedures is not well understood. We sought to examine the impact of resident involvement on outcomes after bariatric surgery using a population-based clinical registry. Study Design: We analyzed 17,057 patients who underwent a primary laparoscopic gastric bypass in the 35-hospital Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative from July 2006 to August 2012. Resident involvement was characterized at the surgeon level. Using hierarchical logistic regression, we examined the influence of resident involvement on 30-day complications, accounting for patient characteristics as well as hospital and surgeon case volume. To evaluate potential mediating factors for specific complications, we also adjusted for operative duration. Results: Risk-adjusted 30-day complication rates with and without residents were 13.0% and 8.5%, respectively (p < 0.01). Resident involvement was independently associated with wound infection (odds ratio [OR] = 2.06; 95% CI, 1.24−3.43) and venous thromboembolism (OR = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.19−3.40), but not with any other medical or surgical complications. Operative duration was longer with resident involvement (median duration with residents 129 minutes vs 88 minutes without; p < 0.01). After adjusting for operative duration, resident involvement was still independently associated with wound infection (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01−2.76), but not venous thromboembolism (OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 0.99−3.04). Conclusions: Resident involvement in laparoscopic gastric bypass is independently associated with wound infections and venous thromboembolism. The effect appears to be mediated in part by longer operative times. These findings highlight the importance of strategies to assess and improve resident technical proficiency outside the operating room. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

There is evidence that collaborations between hospitals and physicians in particular regions of the country have led to improvements in the quality of care. Even so, there have not been many of these collaborations. We review one, the Michigan regional collaborative improvement program, which was paid for by a large private insurer, has yielded improvements for a range of clinical conditions, and has reduced costs in several important areas. In general and vascular surgery alone, complications from surgery dropped almost 2.6 percent among participating Michigan hospitals-a change that translates into 2,500 fewer Michigan patients with surgical complications each year. Estimated annual savings from this one collaborative are approximately $20 million, far exceeding the cost of administering the program. Regional collaborative improvement programs should become increasingly attractive to hospitals and physicians, as well as to national policy makers, as they seek to improve health care quality and reduce costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Payers and professional organizations are expanding accreditation and “centers of excellence” programs in bariatric surgery. Rather than directly measuring outcomes, most programs rely on procedure volume. We sought to determine whether risk-adjusted outcomes or hospital volume were better at predicting future hospital morbidity with bariatric surgery. Study Design: We identified all patients who underwent gastric bypass in the New York State Inpatient database (n = 32,381 patients, n = 105 hospitals). Morbidity was ascertained using a previously validated combination of diagnostic and procedure codes. We first calculated the risk-adjusted morbidity and volume at each hospital during a 2-year period (2003 to 2004). We then ascertained the proportion of hospital-level variation explained by each measure using hierarchical modeling techniques. Finally, we compared the ability of each measure to predict future performance, as assessed with risk-adjusted morbidity, in the next 2 years (2005 to 2006). Results: Risk-adjusted morbidity explained 83% of future hospital-level variation in morbidity compared with only 21% for hospital volume. When comparing the “best” with the “worst” hospital quartiles, risk-adjusted morbidity predicted a more than fourfold difference in future performance (1.7% versus 7.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 4.5; 95% CI, 3.5 to 5.9). Hospital volume predicted only a twofold difference (2.5% versus 4.5%; OR: 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.4) from the best to worst quartile. Conclusions: Risk-adjusted morbidity is much better than hospital volume at predicting future performance with bariatric surgery. Rather than focusing on volume, accreditation and centers of excellence programs should focus more on directly measuring outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]