Search

We analyzed advance care planning (ACP) billing for adults aged 65 years or above and who were managed by a large national physician practice that employs acute care providers in hospital medicine, emergency medicine and critical care between January 1, 2017 and March 31, 2017. Prompting hospitalists to answer the validated "surprise question" (SQ; "Would you be surprised if the patient died in the next year?") for inpatient admissions served to prime hospitalists and triggered an icon next to the patient's name. Among 113,621 hospital-based encounters, only 6,146 (5.4%) involved a billed ACP conversation: 8.3% among SQ-prompted who answered "no" and 4.1% SQ-prompted who answered "yes" (for non-SQ prompted cases, the fraction was 3.5%; P < .0001). ACP conversations were associated with a comfort-focused care trajectory. Low ACP rates among even those with high hospitalist-predicted mortality risk underscore the need for quality improvement interventions to increase hospital-based ACP.

Background: A large body of research suggests that hospitals with intensive care units staffed by board-certified intensivists have lower mortality rates than those that do not., Objective: To determine whether hospitals can reduce their mortality by adopting an intensivist staffing model., Design: Retrospective, longitudinal study using 2003-2010 Medicare data and the Leapfrog Group Hospital surveys., Setting and Patients: In total, 2,916,801 Medicare patients at 488 US hospitals., Measurements: We studied 30-day and in-hospital mortality among patients with several common medical and surgical conditions. We first compared risk-adjusted mortality rates of 3 groups of hospitals: those that were intensivist staffed throughout this time period, those that were not intensivist staffed, and those that transitioned to intensivist staffing somewhere during the period. We then examined rates of mortality improvement within each of the 3 groups and used difference-in-differences techniques to assess the independent effect of intensivist staffing among the subset of hospitals that transitioned., Results: Hospitals with intensivist staffing at the beginning of our study period had lower mortality rates than those without. However, hospitals that adopted intensivist staffing during the study period did not substantially improve their mortality rates. In our difference-in-differences analysis, there was no significant independent improvement in mortality after transitioning to intensivist staffing either overall [relative risk (RR), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.90-1.02] or in the medical (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.02) or surgical populations (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84-1.10)., Limitations: Risk adjustment was based on administrative data. Categorization of exposure was by survey response at the hospital level., Conclusions: Adoption of an intensivist staffing model was not associated with improved mortality in Medicare beneficiaries. These findings suggest that the lower mortality rates previously observed at hospitals with intensivist staffing may be attributable to other factors.

Importance: Wide variations in mortality rates exist across hospitals following lung cancer resection; however, the factors underlying these differences remain unclear., Objective: To evaluate perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent lung cancer resection at hospitals with very high and very low mortality rates (high-mortality hospitals [HMHs] and low-mortality hospitals [LMHs]) to better understand the factors related to differences in mortality rates after lung cancer resection., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, 1279 hospitals that were accredited by the Commission on Cancer were ranked on a composite measure of risk-adjusted mortality following major cancer resections performed from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006. We collected data from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, on 645 lung resections in 18 LMHs and 25 HMHs. After adjusting for patient characteristics, we used hierarchical logistic regression to examine differences in the incidence of complications and "failure-to-rescue" rates (defined as death following a complication)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of adherence to processes of care, incidence of complications, and failure to rescue following complications., Results: Among 645 patients who received lung resections (441 in LMHs and 204 in HMHs), the overall unadjusted mortality rates were 1.6% (n = 7) vs 10.8% (n = 22; P < .001) for LMHs and HMHs, respectively. Following risk adjustment, the difference in mortality rates was attenuated (1.8% vs 8.1%; P < .001) but remained significant. Overall, complication rates were higher in HMHs (23.3% vs 15.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.79; 95% CI, 0.99-3.21), but this difference was not significant. The likelihood of any surgical (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.26-2.00) or cardiopulmonary (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.70-2.16) complications was similar between LMHs and HMHs. However, failure-to-rescue rates were significantly higher in HMHs (25.9% vs 8.7%; aOR, 6.55; 95% CI, 1.44-29.88)., Conclusions and Relevance: Failure-to-rescue rates are higher at HMHs, which may explain the large differences between hospitals in mortality rates following lung cancer resection. This finding emphasizes the need for better understanding of the factors related to complications and their subsequent management., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Dr Birkmeyer reports being a consultant and equity owner of ArborMetrix Inc, an Ann Arbor–based health care analytics and information technology firm. No other disclosures were reported.

Hospital executives pursue external recognition to improve market share and demonstrate institutional commitment to quality of care. The Magnet Recognition Program of the American Nurses Credentialing Center identifies hospitals that epitomize nursing excellence, but it is not clear that receiving Magnet recognition improves patient outcomes. Using Medicare data on patients hospitalized for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, colectomy, or lower extremity bypass in 1998-2010, we compared rates of risk-adjusted thirty-day mortality and failure to rescue (death after a postoperative complication) between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals matched on hospital characteristics. Surgical patients treated in Magnet hospitals, compared to those treated in non-Magnet hospitals, were 7.7 percent less likely to die within thirty days and 8.6 percent less likely to die after a postoperative complication. Across the thirteen-year study period, patient outcomes were significantly better in Magnet hospitals than in non-Magnet hospitals. However, outcomes did not improve for hospitals after they received Magnet recognition, which suggests that the Magnet program recognizes existing excellence and does not lead to additional improvements in surgical outcomes., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Objective: To elucidate clinical mechanisms underlying variation in hospital mortality after cancer surgery, Background: : Thousands of Americans die every year undergoing elective cancer surgery. Wide variation in hospital mortality rates suggest opportunities for improvement, but these efforts are limited by uncertainty about why some hospitals have poorer outcomes than others., Methods: Using data from the 2006-2007 National Cancer Data Base, we ranked 1279 hospitals according to a composite measure of perioperative mortality after operations for bladder, esophagus, colon, lung, pancreas, and stomach cancers. We then conducted detailed medical record review of 5632 patients at 1 of 19 hospitals with low mortality rates (2.1%) or 30 hospitals with high mortality rates (9.1%). Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to compare risk-adjusted complication incidence and case-fatality rates among patients experiencing serious complications., Results: The 7.0% absolute mortality difference between the 2 hospital groups could be attributed to higher mortality from surgical site, pulmonary, thromboembolic, and other complications. The overall incidence of complications was not different between hospital groups [21.2% vs 17.8%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.94]. In contrast, case-fatality after complications was more than threefold higher at high mortality hospitals than at low mortality hospitals (25.9% vs 13.6%; adjusted OR = 3.23, 95% CI: 1.56-6.69)., Conclusions: Low mortality and high mortality hospitals are distinguished less by their complication rates than by how frequently patients die after a complication. Strategies for ensuring the timely recognition and effective management of postoperative complications will be essential in reducing mortality after cancer surgery.

Objective: To determine whether the relationship between hospital volume and mortality has changed over time., Background: It is generally accepted that hospital volume is associated with mortality in high-risk procedures. However, as surgical safety has improved over the last decade, recent evidence has suggested that the inverse relationship has diminished or been eliminated., Methods: Using national Medicare claims data from 2000 through 2009, we examined mortality among 3,282,127 patients who underwent 1 of 8 gastrointestinal, cardiac, or vascular procedures. Hospitals were stratified into quintiles of operative volume. Using multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient characteristics, we examined the relationship between hospital volume and mortality, and assessed for changes over time. We performed sensitivity analyses using hierarchical logistic regression modeling with hospital-level random effects to confirm our results., Results: Throughout the 10-year period, a significant inverse relationship was observed in all procedures. In 5 of the 8 procedures studied, the strength of the volume-outcome relationship increased over time. In esophagectomy, for example, the adjusted odds ratio of mortality in very low volume hospitals compared to very high volume hospitals increased from 2.25 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-3.23] in 2000-2001 to 3.68 (95% CI: 2.66-5.11) in 2008-2009. Only pancreatectomy showed a notable decrease in strength of the relationship over time, from 5.83 (95% CI: 3.64-9.36) in 2000-2001, to 3.08 (95% CI: 2.07-4.57) in 2008-2009., Conclusions: For all procedures examined, higher volume hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than lower volume hospitals. Despite recent improvements in surgical safety, the strong inverse relationship between hospital volume and mortality persists in the modern era.

Objective: To evaluate adherence to perioperative processes of care associated with major cancer resections., Background: Mortality rates associated with major cancer resections vary across hospitals. Because mechanisms underlying such variations are not well-established, we studied adherence to perioperative care processes., Methods: There were 1,279 hospitals participating in the National Cancer DataBase (2005-2006) ranked on a composite measure of mortality for bladder, colon, esophagus, stomach, lung, and pancreas cancer operations. We sampled hospitals from among those with the lowest and highest mortality rates, with 19 low-mortality hospitals [(LMHs), risk-adjusted mortality rate of 2.84 %] and 30 high-mortality hospitals [(HMHs), risk-adjusted mortality rate of 7.37 %]. We then conducted onsite chart reviews. Using logistic regression, we examined differences in perioperative care, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics., Results: Compared to LMHs, HMHs were less likely to use prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism, either preoperative or postoperatively [adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.74, 95 % CI 0.50-0.92 and aRR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.56-0.93, respectively]. The two hospital groups were indistinguishable with respect to processes aimed at preventing surgical site infections, such as the use of antibiotics prior to incision (aRR, 0.99, 95 % CI 0.90-1.04), and processes intended to prevent cardiac events, including the use of β-blockers (1.00, 95 % CI 0.81-1.14). HMHs were significantly less likely to use epidurals (aRR, 0.57, 95 % CI 0.32-0.93)., Conclusions: HMHs and LMHs differ in several aspects of perioperative care. These areas may represent opportunities for improving cancer surgery quality at hospitals with high mortality.

Objective: We sought to determine whether the changes in incentive design in phase 2 of Medicare's flagship pay-for-performance program, the Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID), reduced surgical mortality or complication rates at participating hospitals., Background: The Premier HQID was initiated in 2003 to reward high-performing hospitals. The program redesigned its incentive structure in 2006 to also reward hospitals that achieved significant improvement. The impact of the change in incentive structure on outcomes in surgical populations is unknown., Methods: We examined discharge data for patients who underwent coronary artery bypass (CABG), hip replacement, and knee replacement at Premier hospitals and non-Premier hospitals in Hospital Compare from 2003 to 2009 in 12 states (n = 861,411). We assessed the impact of incentive structural changes in 2006 on serious complications and 30-day mortality. In these analyses, we adjusted for patient characteristics using multiple logistic regression models. To account for improvement in outcomes over time, we used difference-in-difference techniques that compare trends in Premier versus non-Premier hospitals. We repeated our analyses after stratifying hospitals into quintiles according to risk-adjusted mortality and serious complication rates., Results: After restructuring incentives in 2006 in Premier hospitals, there were lower risk-adjusted mortality and complication rates for both cardiac and orthopedic patients. However, after accounting for temporal trends in non-Premier hospitals, there were no significant improvements in mortality for CABG [odds ratio (OR) = 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-1.28] or joint replacement (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.12). Similarly, there were no significant improvements in serious complications for CABG (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.14) or joint replacement (OR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23). Analysis of the "worst" quintile hospitals that were targeted in the incentive structural changes also did not reveal a change in mortality [(OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.78-1.32) for CABG and (OR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.22-4.26) for joint replacement] or serious complication rates [(OR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.88-1.34) for CABG and (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.28) for joint replacement]., Conclusions: Despite recent enhancements to incentive structures, the Premier HQID did not improve surgical outcomes at participating hospitals. Unless significantly redesigned, pay-for-performance may not be a successful strategy to improve outcomes in surgery.

Introduction: Although the relationship between surgical volume and mortality is well established, the mechanisms underlying these associations remain uncertain. We sought to determine whether increased mortality at low-volume centers was due to higher complication rates or less success in rescuing patients from complications., Methods: Using 2005 to 2007 Medicare data, we identified patients undergoing 3 high-risk cancer operations: gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, and esophagectomy. We first ranked hospitals according to their procedural volume for these operations and divided them into 5 equal groups (quintiles) based on procedure volume cutoffs that most closely resulted in an equal distribution of patients through the quintiles. We then compared the incidence of major complications and "failure to rescue" (ie, case fatality among patients with complications) across hospital quintiles. We performed this analysis for all operations combined and for each operation individually., Results: With all 3 operations combined, failure to rescue had a much stronger relationship to hospital volume than postoperative complications. Very low-volume (lowest quintile) hospitals had only slightly higher complications rates (42.7% vs. 38.9%; odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.33), but markedly higher failure-to-rescue rates (30.3% vs. 13.1%; odds ratio 2.89, 95% confidence interval, 2.40-3.48) compared with very high-volume hospitals (highest quintile). These relationships also held true for individual operations. For example, patients undergoing pancreatectomy at very low-volume hospitals were 1.7 times more likely to have a major complication than those at very high-volume hospitals (38.3% vs. 27.7%, P<0.05), but 3.2 times more likely to die once those complications had occurred (26.0% vs. 9.9%, P<0.05)., Conclusions: Differences in mortality between high and low-volume hospitals are not associated with large differences in complication rates. Instead, these differences seem to be associated with the ability of a hospital to effectively rescue patients from complications. Strategies focusing on the timely recognition and management of complications once they occur may be essential to improving outcomes at low-volume hospitals.

Background: There were numerous efforts in the United States during the previous decade to concentrate selected surgical procedures in high-volume hospitals. It remains unknown whether referral patterns for high-risk surgery have changed as a result and how operative mortality has been affected., Methods: We used national Medicare data to study patients undergoing one of eight different cancer and cardiovascular operations from 1999 through 2008. For each procedure, we examined trends in hospital volume and market concentration, defined as the proportion of Medicare patients undergoing surgery in the top decile of hospitals by volume per year. We used regression-based techniques to assess the effects of volume and market concentration on mortality over time, adjusting for case mix., Results: Median hospital volumes of four cancer resections (lung, esophagus, pancreas, and bladder) and of repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rose substantially. Depending on the procedure, higher hospital volumes were attributable to an increasing number of cases nationwide, an increasing market concentration, or both. Hospital volumes rose slightly for aortic-valve replacement but fell for coronary-artery bypass grafting and carotid endarterectomy. Operative mortality declined for all eight procedures, ranging from a relative decline of 8% for carotid endarterectomy (1.3% mortality in 1999 and 1.2% in 2008) to 36% for AAA repair (4.4% in 1999 and 2.8% in 2008). Higher hospital volumes explained a large portion of the decline in mortality for pancreatectomy (67% of the decline), cystectomy (37%), and esophagectomy (32%), but not for the other procedures., Conclusions: Operative mortality with high-risk surgery fell substantially during the previous decade. Although increased market concentration and hospital volume have contributed to declining mortality with some high-risk cancer operations, declines in mortality with other procedures are largely attributable to other factors. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Objective: We examined the implications of reliability adjustment on hospital mortality with surgery., Data Source: We used national Medicare data (2003-2006) for three surgical procedures: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, and pancreatic resection., Study Design: We conducted an observational study to evaluate the impact of reliability adjustment on hospital mortality rankings. Using hierarchical modeling, we adjusted hospital mortality for reliability using empirical Bayes techniques. We assessed the implication of this adjustment on the apparent variation across hospitals and the ability of historical hospital mortality rates (2003-2004) to forecast future mortality (2005-2006)., Principal Findings: The net effect of reliability adjustment was to greatly diminish apparent variation for all three operations. Reliability adjustment was also particularly important for identifying hospitals with the lowest future mortality. Without reliability adjustment, hospitals in the "best" quintile (2003-2004) with pancreatic resection had a mortality of 7.6 percent in 2005-2006; with reliability adjustment, the "best" hospital quintile had a mortality of 2.7 percent in 2005-2006. For AAA repair, reliability adjustment also improved the ability to identify hospitals with lower future mortality. For CABG, the benefits of reliability adjustment were limited to the lowest volume hospitals., Conclusion: Reliability adjustment results in more stable estimates of mortality that better forecast future performance. This statistical technique is crucial for helping patients select the best hospitals for specific procedures, particularly uncommon ones, and should be used for public reporting of hospital mortality., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: Hospital mortality that is associated with inpatient surgery varies widely. Reducing rates of postoperative complications, the current focus of payers and regulators, may be one approach to reducing mortality. However, effective management of complications once they have occurred may be equally important., Methods: We studied 84,730 patients who had undergone inpatient general and vascular surgery from 2005 through 2007, using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. We first ranked hospitals according to their risk-adjusted overall rate of death and divided them into five groups. For hospitals in each overall mortality quintile, we then assessed the incidence of overall and major complications and the rate of death among patients with major complications., Results: Rates of death varied widely across hospital quintiles, from 3.5% in very-low-mortality hospitals to 6.9% in very-high-mortality hospitals. Hospitals with either very high mortality or very low mortality had similar rates of overall complications (24.6% and 26.9%, respectively) and of major complications (18.2% and 16.2%, respectively). Rates of individual complications did not vary significantly across hospital mortality quintiles. In contrast, mortality in patients with major complications was almost twice as high in hospitals with very high overall mortality as in those with very low overall mortality (21.4% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001). Differences in rates of death among patients with major complications were also the primary determinant of variation in overall mortality with individual operations., Conclusions: In addition to efforts aimed at avoiding complications in the first place, reducing mortality associated with inpatient surgery will require greater attention to the timely recognition and management of complications once they occur., (2009 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Although payers increasingly report information on hospital volume and mortality from surgery, the value of these data is uncertain. Using national Medicare data for six surgical operations (covering the years 2003-2006), we created a composite measure based on these two quality indicators. We found that this simple measure was a strong predictor of future performance for all six operations. In this regard, it was more effective than the individual measures. Such measures would be useful for helping patients and payers identify low-mortality hospitals for major surgery.

Surgical mortality varies widely across hospitals and surgeons, more so than would be predicted by chance alone or differences in case mix. Although a large body of research has suggested the importance of procedure volume, clinical mechanisms underlying variation in surgical mortality remain largely unknown. Payers, policy makers, and professional organizations have implemented a variety of large-scale strategies aimed at improving outcomes. Selective referral, process compliance, and outcomes measurement reflect different philosophies on how best to improve surgical quality and have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The optimal strategy may depend on both the clinical context (e.g., which procedure) and political realities.

Background: It is a widely held belief that detailed risk-adjustment is always necessary in comparative reports of surgical performance. We sought to evaluate the importance of risk-adjustment for two cardiac surgery report cards in New York and Pennsylvania., Study Design: We abstracted data directly from publicly available cardiac surgery report cards from New York State (2001 and 2002) and Pennsylvania (2000 and 2002). We first estimated the correlation between unadjusted and risk-adjusted mortality rates. We then divided hospitals into three groups of historic performance (best, average, and worst) for both unadjusted and risk-adjusted mortality rankings. We then calculated the risk-adjusted mortality within each of these groups using data from the report card from the subsequent year., Results: Risk-adjusted and unadjusted mortality rates were highly correlated for both New York (Pearson's r=0.95; Spearman's r=0.91) and Pennsylvania (Pearson's r=0.87; Spearman's r=0.89). For both states, risk-adjusted and unadjusted rankings were equally good at predicting subsequent mortality. In New York State, mortality for hospitals in the worst group was 50% higher than that in the best group regardless of whether unadjusted (relative risk [RR], 1.51) or adjusted (RR, 1.49) rankings were used. The same was found in Pennsylvania, where the results for unadjusted (RR, 1.53) and adjusted (RR, 1.45) rankings were nearly identical., Conclusions: Based on data from two prominent state registries, risk-adjusted and unadjusted mortality rates provide nearly identical estimates of hospital performance with coronary artery bypass. Risk-adjustment may not always be important for identifying high quality hospitals.

Background: Outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and congestive heart failure (CHF) at specialty cardiac hospitals are uncertain., Methods and Results: From 2003 Medicare data, we used hierarchical regression to calculate 30-day standardized mortality ratios and risk-standardized mortality rates for AMI and CHF at 16 cardiac and 121 peer general hospitals in 15 healthcare markets. We then compared cardiac and general hospitals by determining (1) the proportion of facilities with statistically higher, no different, or lower than expected mortality based on 95% interval estimates of standardized mortality ratios and (2) differences in risk-standardized mortality rates between the types of facilities after stratification within healthcare markets. We identified 1912 patients with AMI and 1275 patients with CHF at cardiac hospitals and 13,158 patients with AMI and 18,295 patients with CHF at general hospitals. Patients at cardiac hospitals were younger, were more likely to be male, and had a much lower prevalence of noncardiovascular diseases. After adjustment for patient differences, standardized mortality ratios were significantly better than expected for 4 (25%) and 5 (31%) cardiac hospitals for AMI and CHF, respectively, compared with 5 (4%) and 6 (5%) general hospitals. Risk-standardized mortality rates were modestly lower at cardiac hospitals (15.0% versus 16.2% for AMI, P<0.001, and 10.7% versus 11.3% for CHF, P<0.01)., Conclusions: Patients with AMI and CHF at cardiac hospitals differ considerably from those at peer general hospitals. Although outcomes were modestly better at cardiac hospitals, substantial variation was noted across individual facilities.

Objectives: High-volume hospitals have lower mortality rates for a wide range of surgical procedures, including cystectomy for bladder cancer. However, the processes of care that mediate this effect are unknown. We sought to identify the processes that underlie the volume-outcome relationship for cystectomy., Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data set, we used International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 procedure codes to identify 4465 patients who underwent cystectomy for bladder cancer between 1992 and 1999. The preoperative and perioperative processes of care were abstracted from the inpatient, outpatient, and physician files using the procedure and diagnosis codes available through 2002. Logistic models were used to assess the relationship between the process and hospital volume, adjusting for differences in patient characteristics., Results: Substantial variation was found in the use of specific processes of care across the hospital volume strata. High-volume hospitals had greater rates of preoperative cardiac testing (odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 to 1.98), intraoperative arterial monitoring (OR 3.73, 95% CI 3.11 to 4.46), and the use of a continent diversion (OR 4.01, 95% CI 3.03 to 5.30), among many others. Patients treated at low-volume hospitals were 48% more likely to die in the postoperative period (4.9% versus 3.5%, adjusted OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13). Differences in the use of processes of care explained 23% of this volume-mortality effect., Conclusions: High-volume and low-volume hospitals differ with regard to many processes of care before, during, and after radical cystectomy. Although these practices have partly explained the volume-outcome relationships for cystectomy, the primary mechanisms underlying this effect remain unclear.

Background: Except in cardiac surgery, measuring quality with procedure-specific mortality rates is unreliable because of small sample sizes at individual hospitals. Statistical power can be improved by combining mortality data from multiple operations. We sought to determine whether this approach would still be useful in understanding performance with individual procedures., Methods: We studied 11 high-risk operations performed in the national Medicare population (1996-1999). For each operation, we calculated 1) the risk-adjusted mortality rate for the procedure and 2) the mortality rate with up to 10 other operations combined ("other" mortality). To test for an association between these mortality rates, we calculated the correlation coefficient adjusting for random variation. We then collapsed hospitals into quintiles of other mortality and calculated procedure-specific mortality rates within each of these quintiles., Results: Mortality with specific operations was modestly correlated with other mortality: coefficients ranged from 0.14 for pneumonectomy to 0.35 for esophagectomy. Despite small to moderate correlations, other mortality was a good predictor of procedure-specific mortality for 10 of the 11 operations. Pancreatic resection had the strongest relationship, with procedure-specific mortality rates at hospitals in the worst quintile of other mortality 3-fold higher than those in the best quintile (15.2% vs. 6.3%, P < 0.001). Pneumonectomy had the weakest relationship with no significant relationship between other mortality and procedure-specific mortality., Conclusions: Hospitals with low mortality rates for 1 operation tend to have lower mortality rates for other operations. These relationships suggest that different operations share important structures and processes of care related to performance. Future efforts aimed at predicting procedure-specific performance should consider incorporating data from other operations at that hospital.

Context: Despite growing interest in evidence-based hospital referral for selected surgical procedures, there remains considerable debate about which measures should be used to identify high-quality providers., Objectives: To assess the usefulness of historical mortality rates and procedure volume as predictors of subsequent hospital performance with different procedures., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data from the national Medicare population, we identified all U.S. hospitals performing one of 4 high-risk procedures between 1994 and 1997. Hospitals were ranked and grouped into quintiles according to 1) operative mortality (adjusted for patient characteristics) and 2) procedure volume., Main Outcome Measures: Risk-adjusted operative mortality in 1998 to 1999., Results: Although historical mortality and volume both predicted subsequent hospital performance, the predictive value of each varied by procedure. For coronary artery bypass graft surgery, mortality rates in 1998 to 1999 differed by 3.3% across quintiles of historical mortality (3.6% to 6.9%, best to worst quintile, respectively), but only by 1.0% across volume quintiles (4.8% to 5.8%). In contrast, for esophagectomy, mortality rates in 1998 to 1999 differed by 12.5% across volume quintiles (7.5% to 20.0%, best to worst quintile, respectively), but only by 1.5% across quintiles of historical mortality (11.4% to 12.9%). Historical mortality and procedure volume had comparable value as predictors of subsequent performance for pancreatic resection and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Our findings were similar when we repeated the analysis using data from later years., Conclusions: Historical measures of operative mortality or procedure volume identify hospitals likely to have better outcomes in the future. The optimal measure for selecting high-quality providers depends on the procedure.

Background: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) designates cancer centers as regional centers of excellence in research and patient care. Although these centers often advertise their superior outcomes, their relative performance has not been examined empirically. In the current study, the authors assessed whether patients at NCI cancer centers compared with patients at control hospitals had lower mortality rates after major cancer surgery., Methods: Using the national Medicare database (1994-1999), the authors assessed surgical mortality and late survival rates for 63,860 elderly patients undergoing resection for lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, or colon carcinoma. For assessing performance, patients treated at the 51 NCI cancer centers were compared with patients from 51 control hospitals with the highest volumes for each procedure. Mortality rates (surgical and 5-year rates) were adjusted for patient characteristics and residual differences in procedure volume., Results: NCI cancer centers had lower adjusted surgical mortality rates than control hospitals for 4 of the 6 procedures, including colectomy (5.4% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.026), pulmonary resection (6.3% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.010), gastrectomy (8.0% vs. 12.2%; P < 0.001), and esophagectomy (7.9% vs. 10.9%; P = 0.027). Nonsignificant trends toward lower adjusted operative mortality rates at NCI cancer centers were also observed for cystectomy and pancreatic resection. Among patients surviving surgery, however, there were no important differences in subsequent 5-year mortality rates between NCI cancer centers and control hospitals for any of the procedures., Conclusions: For many cancer procedures, patients undergoing surgery at NCI-designated cancer centers had lower surgical mortality rates than those treated at comparably high-volume hospitals, but similar long-term survival rates., ((c) 2004 American Cancer Society)

Context: Surgical mortality rates are increasingly used to measure hospital quality. It is not clear, however, how many hospitals have sufficient caseloads to reliably identify quality problems., Objective: To determine whether the 7 operations for which mortality has been advocated as a quality indicator by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery, repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, pancreatic resection, esophageal resection, pediatric heart surgery, craniotomy, hip replacement) are performed frequently enough to reliably identify hospitals with increased mortality rates., Design and Setting: The US national average mortality rates and hospital caseloads of the 7 operations were determined using the 2000 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), and sample size calculations were performed to determine the minimum caseload necessary to reliably detect increased mortality rates in poorly performing hospitals. A 3-year hospital caseload was used for the baseline analysis, and poor performance was defined as a mortality rate double the national average., Main Outcome Measure: Proportion of hospitals in the United States that performed more than the minimum caseload for each operation., Results: The national average mortality rates for the 7 procedures examined ranged from 0.3% for hip replacement to 10.7% for craniotomy. Minimum hospital caseloads necessary to detect a doubling of the mortality rate were 64 cases for craniotomy, 77 for esophageal resection, 86 for pancreatic resection, 138 for pediatric heart surgery, 195 for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, 219 for CABG surgery, and 2668 for hip replacement. For only 1 operation did the majority of hospitals exceed the minimum caseload, with 90% of hospitals performing CABG surgery having a caseload of 219 or higher. For the remaining operations, only a small proportion of hospitals met the minimum caseload: craniotomy (33%), pediatric heart surgery (25%), repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (8%), pancreatic resection (2%), esophageal resection (1%), and hip replacement (<1%)., Conclusion: Except for CABG surgery, the operations for which surgical mortality has been advocated as a quality indicator are not performed frequently enough to judge hospital quality.

Background: Although initiatives to regionalize cancer surgery are already under way, the relative importance of volume in cancer surgery is disputed., Hypothesis: We examined surgical mortality with 8 cancer resections in the US population to better quantify the influence of hospital volume., Methods: Using information from the all-payer Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1995-1997), we examined mortality with 8 cancer resections (N = 195 152). After dividing patients into 3 evenly sized volume groups based on hospital procedure volume (low, medium, and high), we used regression techniques to describe relationships between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics., Results: Trends toward lower operative risks at high-volume hospitals were observed for 7 of the 8 procedures. However, differences between low- and high high-volume hospitals were statistically significant for only 3 operations (esophagectomy, 15.0% vs 6.5%; pancreatic resection, 13.1% vs 2.5%; and pulmonary lobectomy, 10.1% vs 8.9%, respectively). Although they did not reach statistical significance, absolute differences in mortality between low- and high-volume hospitals were greater than 1% for the following 3 procedures: gastrectomy, 8.7% vs 6.9%; cystectomy, 3.6% vs 2.5%; and pneumonectomy, 10.6% vs 8.9%, respectively. Mortality reductions for nephrectomy and colectomy were small. In general, in terms of absolute differences in mortality, the effect of volume was greatest in elderly patients., Conclusions: Operative mortality decreases with increasing hospital volume for several cancer resections. However, volume may be most important in patients who are older and at higher risk.

Background: Payers and policy makers are attempting to concentrate selected cardiovascular procedures in high-volume centers. A recent analysis of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), however, suggests that volume-based referral initiatives should focus only on high-risk patients., Methods and Results: Using the national Medicare database (1994 to 1999), we studied the operative mortality in patients undergoing 4 cardiovascular procedures (CABG, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair). We defined 2 categories of patient risk: high-risk (patients in the highest 25th percentile of predicted risk on the basis of a logistic regression model) and low-risk (patients in the lowest 75th percentile). We then compared operative mortality in patients undergoing surgery at very-high volume hospitals (VHVH, highest 20th percentile of procedure volume) and very-low volume hospitals (VLVH, lowest 20th percentile of procedure volume). Absolute differences in operative mortality between VLVH and VHVH were somewhat larger in high-risk patients. However, volume-related differences in mortality were also significant for low-risk patients undergoing one of the 4 procedures. In relative terms, the effect of hospital volume was similar in both high- and low-risk patients. For high- and low-risk patients, the relative risk (RR) of mortality between VHVH and VLVH were nearly equal for CABG (RR=0.78 for low-risk patients, RR=0.77 for high risk patients), aortic valve replacement (0.73 versus 0.76), mitral valve replacement (0.73 versus 0.74), and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (0.51 versus 0.54)., Conclusions: Although the merits of volume-based referral initiatives can be debated on many grounds, there seems to be little rationale for restricting these initiatives to high-risk patients.

In view of recent enthusiasm for surgery to treat morbid obesity, we examined national changes in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of bariatric surgery over time. With the use of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) codes, we identified all bariatric procedures (n = 12,203) performed on adults from 1990 to 1997 in hospitals participating in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. We then applied sampling weights and United States Census data to calculate the national population-based rates of bariatric surgery procedures for each year and examined secular trends in utilization. We further evaluated changes in patient characteristics and in-hospital mortality and complications. From 1990 to 1997, the national annual rate of bariatric surgery increased from 2.7 to 6.3 per 100,000 adults (P < 0.001). The percentage of bariatric procedures performed by gastric bypass increased from 52% to 84% (P < 0.001). Patients were slightly older (38.1 years vs. 40.3 years; P < 0.001) with more comorbid conditions (20.9% vs. 31.6%; P < 0.001) in 1997 vs. 1990. In-hospital mortality was 0.37% overall and remained stable. Rates of pulmonary emboli, early reoperation, and pulmonary complications declined significantly over time. Between 1990 and 1997, the annual rate of bariatric surgery in the United States more than doubled, without substantial changes in perioperative morbidity or mortality. This trend was largely associated with an increase in the use of gastric bypass procedures.

Background: Although numerous studies suggest that there is an inverse relation between hospital volume of surgical procedures and surgical mortality, the relative importance of hospital volume in various surgical procedures is disputed., Methods: Using information from the national Medicare claims data base and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we examined the mortality associated with six different types of cardiovascular procedures and eight types of major cancer resections between 1994 and 1999 (total number of procedures, 2.5 million). Regression techniques were used to describe relations between hospital volume (total number of procedures performed per year) and mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days), with adjustment for characteristics of the patients., Results: Mortality decreased as volume increased for all 14 types of procedures, but the relative importance of volume varied markedly according to the type of procedure. Absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals ranged from over 12 percent (for pancreatic resection, 16.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent) to only 0.2 percent (for carotid endarterectomy, 1.7 percent vs. 1.5 percent). The absolute differences in adjusted mortality rates between very-low-volume hospitals and very-high-volume hospitals were greater than 5 percent for esophagectomy and pneumonectomy, 2 to 5 percent for gastrectomy, cystectomy, repair of a nonruptured abdominal aneurysm, and replacement of an aortic or mitral valve, and less than 2 percent for coronary-artery bypass grafting, lower-extremity bypass, colectomy, lobectomy, and nephrectomy., Conclusions: In the absence of other information about the quality of surgery at the hospitals near them, Medicare patients undergoing selected cardiovascular or cancer procedures can significantly reduce their risk of operative death by selecting a high-volume hospital.

BackgroundPatients undergoing complex pediatric cardiac surgery remain at considerable risk of mortality and morbidity, and variation in outcomes exists across hospitals. The Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium (PC4) was formed to improve the quality of care for these patients through transparent data sharing and collaborative learning between participants.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine whether outcomes improved over time within PC4.MethodsThe study analyzed 19,600 hospitalizations (18 hospitals) in the PC4 clinical registry that included cardiovascular surgery from August 2014 to June 2018. The primary exposure was 2 years of PC4 participation; this provided adequate time for hospitals to accrue data and engage in collaborative learning. Aggregate case mix-adjusted outcomes were compared between the first 2 years of participation (baseline) and all months post-exposure. We also evaluated outcomes from the same era in a cohort of similar, non-PC4 hospitals.ResultsDuring the baseline period, there was no evidence of improvement. We observed significant improvement in the post-exposure period versus baseline for post-operative intensive care unit mortality (2.1% vs. 2.7%; 22% relative reduction [RR]; p = 0.001), in-hospital mortality (2.5% vs. 3.3%; 24% RR; p = 0.001), major complications (10.1% vs. 11.5%; 12% RR; p

Background: We sought to determine whether dementia is associated with treatment intensity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. Methods: This study includes review of the medical records for patients >60 years of age (n = 5394) hospitalized with COVID‐19 from 132 community hospitals between March and June 2020. We examined the relationships between dementia and treatment intensity (including intensive care unit [ICU] admission and mechanical ventilation [MV] and care processes that may influence them, including advance care planning [ACP] billing and do‐not‐resuscitate [DNR] orders) and in‐hospital mortality adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, month of hospitalization, and clustering within hospital. We further explored the effect of ACP conversations on the relationship between dementia and outcomes, both at the individual patient level (effect of having ACP) and at the hospital level (effect of being treated at a hospital with low: <10%, medium 10%–20%, or high >20% ACP rates). Results: Ten percent (n = 522) of the patients had documented dementia. Dementia patients were older (>80 years: 60% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001), had a lower burden of comorbidity (3+ comorbidities: 31% vs. 38%, p = 0.003), were more likely to have ACP (28% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001) and a DNR order (52% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001), had similar rates of ICU admission (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.258), were less likely to receive MV (11% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), and more likely to die (22% vs. 14%, p < 0.0001). Differential treatment intensity among patients with dementia was concentrated in hospitals with low, dementia‐biased ACP billing practices (risk‐adjusted ICU use: 21% vs. 30%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, p = 0.016; risk‐adjusted MV use: 6% vs. 16%, OR = 0.3, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Dementia was associated with lower treatment intensity and higher mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. Differential treatment intensity was concentrated in low ACP billing hospitals suggesting an interplay between provider bias and "preference‐sensitive" care for COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hospital admissions in the US fell dramatically with the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, little is known about differences in admissions patterns among patient groups or the extent of the rebound. In this study of approximately one million medical admissions from a large, nationally representative hospitalist group, we found that declines in non-COVID-19 admissions from February to April 2020 were generally similar across patient demographic subgroups and exceeded 20 percent for all primary admission diagnoses. By late June/early July 2020, overall non-COVID-19 admissions had rebounded to 16 percent below prepandemic baseline volume (8 percent including COVID-19 admissions). Non-COVID-19 admissions were substantially lower for patients residing in majority-Hispanic neighborhoods (32 percent below baseline) and remained well below i baseline for patients with pneumonia (-44 percent), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma (-40 percent), sepsis (-25 percent), urinary tract infection (-24 percent), and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (-22 percent). Health system leaders and public health authorities should focus on efforts to ensure that patients with acute medical illnesses can obtain hospital care as needed during the pandemic to avoid adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]