Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume 206, Issue 4 , Pages 622.e1-622.e9 , April 2008

What Constitutes a “High-Volume” Hospital for Pancreatic Resection?

  • Robert A. Meguid, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence address: Robert A Meguid, MD, Department of Surgery, 600 N Wolfe St, Towers 110, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287.
    • ,
  • Nita Ahuja, MD, FACS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
    • Division of Surgery Oncology, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
    • ,
  • David C. Chang, PhD, MPH, MBA

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

Received 16 July 2007 ,Revised 15 November 2007 ,Accepted 15 November 2007.

References 

  1. Glasgow RE, Mulvihill SJ. Hospital volume influences outcome in patients undergoing pancreatic resection for cancer. West J Med. 1996;165:294–300
  2. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson SR, Tosteson AN, et al. Effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 1999;125:250–256
  3. Birkmeyer JD, Warshaw AL, Finlayson SR, et al. Relationship between hospital volume and late survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery. 1999;126:178–183
  4. Simunovic M, To T, Theriault M, Langer B. Relation between hospital surgical volume and outcome for pancreatic resection for neoplasm in a publicly funded health care system. Cmaj. 1999;160:643–648
  5. Sosa JA, Bowman HM, Gordon TA, et al. Importance of hospital volume in the overall management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;228:429–438
  6. Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, et al. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg. 1998;228:71–78
  7. Birkmeyer JD. Should we regionalize major surgery? (Potential benefits and policy considerations). J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:341–349
  8. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313–316
  9. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer CM. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery. 2001;130:415–422
  10. Leapfrog_Group. “Evidence-based hospital referral” for pancreatic cancer. leapfroggroup.org2003;Accessed January 2, 2007
  11. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA. 1998;280:1747–1751
  12. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP): nationwide inpatient sample. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005;
  13. Ahuja N, Chang D, Gearhart SL. Disparities in colon cancer presentation and in-hospital mortality in Maryland: a ten-year review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:411–416
  14. International classification of diseases, ninth revision. Washington, DC: Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1988;
  15. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383
  16. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1075–1079discussion 1081–1090
  17. Healey C, Osler TM, Rogers FB, et al. Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor. J Trauma. 2003;54:671–678discussion 678–680
  18. Allison PD. Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods and Research. 1999;28:186–208
  19. Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Betensky RA, et al. The Leapfrog volume criteria may fall short in identifying high-quality surgical centers. Ann Surg. 2003;238:447–455discussion 455–447
  20. Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med. 2006;25:127–141
  21. Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Dangers of using “optimal” cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:829–835
  22. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006;332:1080
  23. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135:569–575
  24. Dimick JB, Cowan JA, Colletti LM, Upchurch GR. Hospital teaching status and outcomes of complex surgical procedures in the United States. Arch Surg. 2004;139:137–141
  25. Billingsley KG, Morris AM, Dominitz JA, et al. Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery: understanding the volume-outcome relationship. Arch Surg. 2007;142:23–31discussion 32
  26. Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Goldfaden A, et al. Volume and process of care in high-risk cancer surgery. Cancer. 2006;106:2476–2481
  27. Hannan EL, Popp AJ, Feustel P, et al. Association of surgical specialty and processes of care with patient outcomes for carotid endarterectomy. Stroke. 2001;32:2890–2897
  28. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016–1024
  29. Pronovost PJ, Jenckes MW, Dorman T, et al. Organizational characteristics of intensive care units related to outcomes of abdominal aortic surgery. JAMA. 1999;281:1310–1317
  30. Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Heitmiller RF, Lipsett PA. Intensive care unit physician staffing is associated with decreased length of stay, hospital cost, and complications after esophageal resection. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:753–758
  31. Makary MA, Sexton JB, Freischlag JA, et al. Patient safety in surgery. Ann Surg. 2006;243:628–632discussion 632–625
  32. Zehr KJ, Dawson PB, Yang SC, Heitmiller RF. Standardized clinical care pathways for major thoracic cases reduce hospital costs. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:914–919

 Competing Interests Declared: None.Funding for the materials used in this study was provided by the Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

PII: S1072-7515(07)01858-3

doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.11.011

Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume 206, Issue 4 , Pages 622.e1-622.e9 , April 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution