Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization.

BACKGROUND Regionalization of high-risk surgical procedures to selected high-volume centers has been proposed as a way to reduce operative mortality. For patients, however, travel to regional centers may be undesirable despite the expected mortality benefit. OBJECTIVE To determine the strength of patient preferences for local care. DESIGN Using a scenario of potentially resectable pancreatic cancer and a modification of the standard gamble utility assessment technique, we determined the level of additional operative mortality risk patients would accept to undergo surgery at a local rather than at a distant regional hospital in which operative mortality was assumed to be 3%. We used multiple logistic regression to identify predictors of willingness to accept additional risk. SUBJECTS One hundred consecutive patients (95% male, median age 65) awaiting elective surgery at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Jct., VT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Additional operative mortality risk patients would accept to keep care local. RESULTS All patients preferred local surgery if the operative mortality risk at the local hospital were the same as the regional hospital (3%). If local operative mortality risk were 6%, which is twice the regional risk, 45 of 100 patients would still prefer local surgery. If local risk were 12%, 23 of 100 patients would prefer local surgery. If local risk were 18%, 18 of 100 patients would prefer local surgery. Further increases in local risk did not result in large changes in the proportion of patients preferring local care. CONCLUSIONS Many patients prefer to undergo surgery locally even when travel to a regional center would result in lower operative mortality risk. Therefore, policy makers should consider patient preferences when assessing the expected value of regionalizing major surgery.

[1]  E. Hannan,et al.  The decline in coronary artery bypass graft surgery mortality in New York State. The role of surgeon volume. , 1995, JAMA.

[2]  E L Hannan,et al.  Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  P. Imperato,et al.  The Effects of Regionalization on Clinical Outcomes for a High Risk Surgical Procedure: A Study of the Whipple Procedure in New York State , 1996, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[4]  J. Tielsch,et al.  The Effects of Regionalization on Cost and Outcome for One General High‐Risk Surgical Procedure , 1995, Annals of surgery.

[5]  D H Hickam,et al.  Patients' Preferences for Risk Disclosure and Role in Decision Making for Invasive Medical Procedures , 1997, Journal of general internal medicine.

[6]  Edward L. Hannan,et al.  Investigation of the Relationship Between Volume and Mortality for Surgical Procedures Performed in New York State Hospitals , 1989 .

[7]  B. Miedema,et al.  Complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Current management. , 1992, Archives of surgery.

[8]  Harold S. Luft,et al.  Association of volume with outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery —scheduled vs nonscheduled operations , 1987, JAMA.

[9]  P. Pisters,et al.  A Prospective Randomized Trial of Total Parenteral Nutrition After Major Pancreatic Resection for Malignancy , 1994, Annals of surgery.

[10]  M. Brennan,et al.  Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. , 1993 .

[11]  C. Naylor,et al.  In the queue for total joint replacement: patients' perspectives on waiting times. Ontario Hip and Knee Replacement Project Team. , 1998, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[12]  C. McConkey,et al.  Effect of surgical experience on the results of resection for oesophageal carcinoma , 1986, The British journal of surgery.

[13]  M. Nakao,et al.  Numbers are better than words. Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. , 1983, The American journal of medicine.

[14]  R. F. Holbrook,et al.  A prospective cost analysis of pancreatoduodenectomy. , 1996, American journal of surgery.

[15]  R. Glasgow,et al.  Hospital volume influences outcome in patients undergoing pancreatic resection for cancer. , 1996, The Western journal of medicine.

[16]  R. Brook,et al.  Regionalization of cardiac surgery in the United States and Canada. Geographic access, choice, and outcomes. , 1995, JAMA.

[17]  C. Naylor,et al.  Breast cancer patients' attitudes about rationing postlumpectomy radiation therapy: applicability of trade-off methods to policy-making. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  M. Ruffin,et al.  Patients' interpretation of qualitative probability statements. , 1994, Archives of family medicine.

[19]  D. Rattner,et al.  Standards for pancreatic resection in the 1990s. , 1995, Archives of surgery.

[20]  A. Houghton,et al.  Variation in outcome of surgical procedures , 1994, The British journal of surgery.

[21]  E. Fisher,et al.  Risk of carotid endarterectomy in the elderly. , 1989, American journal of public health.

[22]  K. Lillemoe,et al.  One hundred and forty-five consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies without mortality. , 1993, Annals of surgery.

[23]  R. Brook,et al.  Regionalization of Cardiac Surgery in the United States and Canada , 1996 .