Hospital volume, length of stay, and readmission rates in high-risk surgery

被引:249
作者
Goodney, PP [1 ]
Stukel, TA
Lucas, FL
Finlayson, EVA
Birkmeyer, JD
机构
[1] Dept Vet Affairs Med Ctr, VA Outcomes Grp 111B, White River Jct, VT 05009 USA
[2] Dartmouth Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Sect Gen Surg, Lebanon, NH 03766 USA
[3] Dartmouth Coll, Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dartmouth Med Sch, Ctr Evaluat Clin Sci, Hanover, NH 03756 USA
[4] Maine Med Ctr, Ctr Outcomes Res & Evaluat, Portland, ME 04102 USA
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Surg, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.SLA.0000081094.66659.c3
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: Aimed at reducing surgical deaths, several recent initiatives have attempted to establish volume-based referral strategies in high-risk surgery. Although payers are leading the most visible of these efforts, it is unknown whether volume standards will also reduce resource use. Methods: We studied postoperative length of stay and 30-day readmission rate after 14 cardiovascular and cancer procedures using the 1994-1999 national Medicare database (total n = 2.5 million). We used regression techniques to examine the relationship between length of stay, 30-day readmission, and hospital volume, adjusting for age, gender, race, comorbidity score, admission acuity, and mean social security income. Results: Mean postoperative length of stay ranged from 3.4 days (carotid endarterectomy) to 19.6 days (esophagectomy). There was no consistent relationship between volume and mean length of stay; it significantly increased across volume strata for 7 of the 14 procedures and significantly decreased across volume strata for the other 7. Mean length of stay at very-low-volume and very-high-volume hospitals differed by more than I day for 6 procedures. Of these, the mean length of stay was shorter in high-volume hospitals for 3 procedures (pancreatic resection, esophagectomy, cystectomy), but longer for other procedures (aortic and mitral valve replacement, gastrectomy). The 30-day readmission rate also varied widely by procedure, ranging from 9.9% (nephrectomy) to 22.2% (mitral valve replacement). However, volume was not related to 30-day readmission rate with any procedure. Conclusion: Although hospital volume may be an important predictor of operative mortality, it is not associated with resource use as reflected by length of stay or readmission rates.
引用
收藏
页码:161 / 167
页数:7
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1998, INT CLASSIFICATION D
[2]   Ten-year experience with 733 pancreatic resections - Changing indications, older patients, and decreasing length of hospitalization [J].
Balcom, JH ;
Rattner, DW ;
Warshaw, AL ;
Chang, Y ;
Fernandez-del Castillo, C .
ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2001, 136 (04) :391-397
[3]   Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery [J].
Begg, CB ;
Cramer, LD ;
Hoskins, WJ ;
Brennan, MF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (20) :1747-1751
[4]   PUBLICATION BIAS AND DISSEMINATION OF CLINICAL RESEARCH [J].
BEGG, CB ;
BERLIN, JA .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1989, 81 (02) :107-115
[5]  
Benjamin A E, 1986, Home Health Care Serv Q, V7, P5, DOI 10.1300/J027v07n01_02
[6]  
Birkmeyer J D, 1999, Eff Clin Pract, V2, P277
[7]   Will volume-based referral strategies reduce costs or just save lives? [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Skinner, JS ;
Wennberg, DE .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2002, 21 (05) :234-241
[8]   Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: Potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Finlayson, EVA ;
Birkmeyer, CM .
SURGERY, 2001, 130 (03) :415-422
[9]   Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Siewers, AE ;
Finlayson, EVA ;
Stukel, TA ;
Lucas, FL ;
Batista, I ;
Welch, HG ;
Wennberg, DE .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2002, 346 (15) :1128-1137
[10]   Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting [J].
Callaham, ML ;
Wears, RL ;
Weber, EJ ;
Barton, C ;
Young, G .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03) :254-257