Relationships between volume, efficiency, and quality in surgery - A delicate balance from managerial perspectives

Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, INF 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
World Journal of Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.35). 11/2005; 29(10):1234-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-7988-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Volume, efficiency, and quality in hospital care are often mixed in debate. We analyze how these dimensions are interrelated in surgical hospital management, with particular focus on volume effects: under financial constraints, efficiency is the best form of cost control. External perception of quality is important to attract patients and gain volumes. There are numerous explicit and implicit notions of surgical quality. The relevance of implicit criteria (functionality, reliability, consistency, customaziability, convenience) can change in the time course of hospital competition. Outcome data theoretically are optimal measures of quality, but surgical quality is multifactorially influenced by case mix, surgical technique, indication, process designs, organizational structures, and volume. As quality of surgery is hard to grade, implicit criteria such as customizability currently often overrule functionality (outcome) as the dominant market driver. Activities and volumes are inputs to produce quality. Capability does not translate to ability in a linear function. Adequate process design is important to realize efficiency and quality. Volumes of activities, degree of standardization, specialization, and customer involvement are relevant estimates for process design in services. Flow-orientated management focuses primarily on resource utilization and efficiency, not on surgical quality. The relationship between volume and outcome in surgery is imperfectly understood. Factors involve learning effects both on process efficiency and quality, increased standardization and task specialization, process flow homogeneity, and potential for process integration. Volume is a structural component to develop efficiency and quality. The specific capabilities and process characteristics that contribute to surgical outcome improvement should be defined and exported. Adequate focus should allow even small institutions to benefit from volume-associated effects. All volumes-based learning within standardized processes will finally lead to a plateauing of quality. Only innovations will then further improve quality. Possessing volume can set the optimal ground for continuous process research, subsequent change, innovation, and optimization, while volume itself appears not to be a quality prerequisite.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Legally mandated minimum hospital caseload requirements for certain invasive procedures, including pancreatectomy, esophagectomy, and some types of organ transplantation, have been in effect in Germany since 2004. The goal of such requirements is to improve patient care by ensuring that patients undergo certain procedures only in hospitals that have met the corresponding minimum caseload requirement. We used the case numbers published in legally mandated hospital quality control reports to determine whether the hospitals actually met the stipulated requirements.
    Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 08/2014; 111(33-34):549-55. DOI:10.3238/arztebl.2014.0549 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital productivity has been a research topic for over two decades. Whereas much has been learned regarding cost, technical, scale, and allocative efficiency as well as the impact that weakly disposable inputs/outputs have on hospital behavior, we expand on this research by examining size and service offering, or focus, efficiency at the metropolitan area level for US hospitals. By using an extension of the Free Coordination Hull (FCH), we are able to determine whether hospitals in our sample could become more efficient if they provided more services (reduce inefficiency due to too narrow a focus) or fewer services (reduce inefficiency due to too broad a focus). Our results suggest that findings vary among the hospital markets. This approach could be used by policy makers and managers in order to reduce costs by sharing services, reducing services in hospitals, or expanding services in hospitals. Findings from a study such as this should aid reform programs by providing more information on the sources of hospital inefficiency.
    Atlantic Economic Journal 09/2013; 41(3):241-263. DOI:10.1007/s11293-013-9385-z
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study describes the development of a preliminary set of quality indicators for public Greek National Health System (GNHS) hospitals, which were used in the "Health Monitoring Indicators System: Health Map" (Ygeionomikos Chartis) project, with the purpose that these quality indicators would assess the quality of all the aspects relevant to public hospital healthcare workforce and services provided. A literature review was conducted in the MEDLINE database to identify articles referring to international and national hospital quality assessment projects, together with an online search for relevant projects. Studies were included if they were published in English, from 1980 to 2010. A consensus panel took place afterwards with 40 experts in the field and tele-voting procedure. Twenty relevant projects and their 1698 indicators were selected through the literature search, and after the consensus panel process, a list of 67 indicators were selected to be implemented for the assessment of the public hospitals categorized under six distinct dimensions: Quality, Responsiveness, Efficiency, Utilization, Timeliness, and Resources and Capacity. Data gathered and analyzed in this manner provided a novel evaluation and monitoring system for Greece, which can assist decision-makers, healthcare professionals, and patients in Greece to retrieve relevant information, with the long-term goal to improve quality in care in the GNHS hospital sector. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    International Journal of Health Planning and Management 07/2014; 29(3). DOI:10.1002/hpm.2237 · 0.97 Impact Factor