Trends and Disparities in Regionalization of Pancreatic Resection

Texas A&M University - Galveston, Galveston, Texas, United States
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.39). 10/2007; 11(10):1242-51; discussion 1251-2. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-007-0245-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The current recommendation is that pancreatic resections be performed at hospitals doing >10 pancreatic resections annually.
To evaluate the extent of regionalization of pancreatic resection and the factors predicting resection at high-volume centers (>10 cases/year) in Texas.
Using the Texas Hospital Inpatient Discharge Public Use Data File, we evaluated trends in the percentage of patients undergoing pancreatic resection at high-volume centers (>10 cases/year) from 1999 to 2004 and determined the factors that independently predicted resection at high-volume centers.
A total of 3,189 pancreatic resections were performed in the state of Texas. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher at low-volume centers (7.4%) compared to high-volume centers (3.0%). Patients resected at high-volume centers increased from 54.5% in 1999 to 63.3% in 2004 (P = 0.0004). This was the result of a decrease in resections performed at centers doing less than five resections/year (35.5% to 26.0%). In a multivariate analysis, patients who were >75 (OR = 0.51), female (OR = 0.86), Hispanic (OR = 0.58), having emergent surgery (OR = 0.39), diagnosed with periampullary cancer (OR = 0.68), and living >75 mi from a high-volume center (OR = 0.93 per 10-mi increase in distance, P < 0.05 for all OR) were less likely to be resected at high-volume centers. The odds of being resected at a high-volume center increased 6% per year.
Whereas regionalization of pancreatic resection at high-volume centers in the state of Texas has improved slightly over time, 37% of patients continue to undergo pancreatic resection at low-volume centers, with more than 25% occurring at centers doing less than five per year. There are obvious demographic disparities in the regionalization of care, but additional unmeasured barriers need to be identified.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been repeatedly shown that higher procedure volumes, by hospital and by physician, are associated with better outcomes. Buttressed by large-scale selective service purchasing, surgical care for many volume-sensitive operations has been regionalized. However, the implications of outcome disparity data for obtaining valid patient consent remain uncertain. When the first large scale outcome study appeared showing empirically that outcomes are volume-related, two prominent bioethicists promptly insisted that such information was material to a reasonable patient's decision whether and where to have a volume-sensitive operation and that surgeons at low-volume hospitals should disclose it. More recently, two surgical oncologists have reiterated that argument, most especially when patients are making decisions about pancreatic or esophageal resections. This proposal tantalizingly appeals to the concept of patient empowerment, supposedly showing appropriate respect for the patient's interest in self-determination by having his surgeon (or physician), rather than others, outline for him personally the risks and benefits associated with surgical care delivered at different hospitals. But on the contrary, a surgeon's conducting a truthful, non-misleading, non-confusing informed consent discussion of statistical outcome disparities in the relentlessly shrinking time typically allowed for this conversation is unrealistic as a general requirement. The traditional approach to informed consent is simpler, less fraught and preferable. By law, a surgeon who is licensed to practice independently and who evidences willingness to examine and to offer an operation to a patient conveys (1) an implicit standard of care assurance, and (2) a fiduciary assurance. In other words, it goes without saying that the surgeon holds it out to the patient that s/he possesses the training and skill necessary to perform the offered service with reasonable skill and safety as measured by the applicable standard of care; that s/he will act in good faith and use his/her best medical judgment on the patient's behalf. Liability attaches when patient harm results from a surgeon's failure on either count. It also goes without saying that the surgeon extends similar assurances for care provided by trainees who are under his or her direct supervisory authority and control. The traditional theory of informed consent forestalls requiring desultory discussions of volume-outcome disparities and will be defended here. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Journal of Surgical Oncology 10/2014; 110(5). DOI:10.1002/jso.23718 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The volume effect in pancreatic surgery is well established. Regionalization to high-volume centres has been proposed. The effect of this proposal on practice patterns is unknown. Methods: Retrospective review of pancreatectomy patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2004-2011. Inpatient mortality and complication rates were calculated. Patients were stratified by annual centre pancreatic resection volume (low <5, medium 5-18, high >18). Multivariable regression model evaluated predictors of resection at a high-volume centre. Results: In total, 129 609 patients underwent a pancreatectomy. The crude inpatient mortality rate was 4.3%. 36.0% experienced complications. 66.5% underwent a resection at high-volume centres. In 2004, low-, medium-and high-volume centres resected 16.3%, 24.5% and 59.2% of patients, compared with 7.6%, 19.3% and 73.1% in 2011. High-volume centres had lower mortality (P < 0.001), fewer complications (P < 0.001) and a shorter median length of stay (P < 0.001). Patients at non-high-volume centres had more comorbidities (P = 0.001), lower rates of private insurance (P < 0.001) and more non-elective admissions (P < 0.001). Discussion: In spite of a shift to high-volume hospitals, a substantial cohort still receives a resection outside of these centres. Patients receiving non-high-volume care demonstrate less favourable comorbidities, insurance and urgency of operation. The implications are twofold: already disadvantaged patients may not benefit from the high-volume effect; and patients predisposed to do well may contribute to observed superior outcomes at high-volume centres.
    HPB 06/2014; 16(10). DOI:10.1111/hpb.12283 · 2.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE Changes in health care reimbursement policy have led to an era in which hospitals are motivated to improve quality of care while simultaneously reducing costs. Research demonstrating the most efficient means to target costs may have a positive effect on patient quality of life and the overburdened health care system. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of hospital length of stay (LOS) and the occurrence of postoperative complications on total charges in patients undergoing elective pancreaticoduodenectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS We performed a retrospective review of 89 cases identified in an institutional database of patients who underwent elective pancreaticoduodenectomy at an academic tertiary care center from December 1, 2007, through May 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Occurrence of postoperative and inpatient complications, LOS, incidence of readmission within 60 days of discharge, and hospital charges from initial postoperative hospitalization. Linear regression analysis was performed comparing LOS with hospital charges. RESULTS Thirty-four of 89 patients (38%) developed postoperative complications. Mean and median LOSs were 12 and 8 days, respectively. The LOS was significantly related to postoperative complications. Of the 34 patients who developed complications, the mean LOS was 19 days compared with 7 days for those patients not developing complications (P < .001). Only 2 of 55 patients (4%) without complications were readmitted to the hospital, whereas 13 of 34 patients (38%) with complications required readmission. Perioperative hospital charges were significantly related to LOS (R2 = 0.840, R = 0.917). For those patients without complications, linear regression demonstrated a daily hospital charge of $11 612 (R2 = 0.923, R = 0.961). However, for those patients with complications, the optimal relationship between LOS and hospital charges was exponential (R2 = 0.832). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Prolonged LOS is associated with increased total charges, but given the exponential increase in charges, the complication itself has an effect on increased charges above and beyond that of a prolonged hospitalization. The drive to reduce LOS after pancreaticoduodenectomy has minimal effect on overall charges to the patient. Efforts should be directed instead at reducing complications because this has a much more significant effect on financial outcomes.
    05/2014; 149(7). DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.151