Contribution of hospital characteristics to the volume-outcome relationship: dislocation and infection following total hip replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVE Mortality and complication rates after total hip replacement (THR) are inversely associated with the volume of THRs performed at hospitals and by individual surgeons. It is not clear, however, why a higher volume of such procedures is associated with better outcomes. We evaluated the contribution of hospital structural characteristics to the volume-outcome relationship in THR by examining the rates and predictors of postoperative complications. METHODS We analyzed data pertaining to 5,211 Medicare patients who underwent primary THR in 1995 or 1996 at 167 hospitals in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Data were derived from several sources, including Medicare Part A and Part B claims, the American Board of Medical Specialties, a hospital survey regarding institution-specific characteristics and structural aspects of the care setting, and the American Hospital Association 1995 Annual Survey. Multivariate models were constructed to determine whether hospital structure or surgeon-associated factors may underlie the relationship between volume of THRs and the occurrence of perioperative orthopedic adverse events, defined as deep wound infection or hip dislocation within 90 days of surgery. RESULTS Of the patients studied, 2.6% experienced an orthopedic adverse event after THR. Sixty-nine percent fewer events occurred in hospitals where >100 THRs in Medicare patients were performed annually, compared with hospitals where <or=25 THRs were performed. In univariate analyses, several hospital-level factors were associated with a reduced (approximately 50%) risk of adverse events, including private (versus public) ownership, membership in the Council of Teaching Hospitals, presence of any residency training program, availability of a dedicated orthopedic nursing unit, and existence of operating rooms with laminar flow exhaust systems. However, the only hospital-level factor associated with adverse events in multivariate models was the use of laminar flow exhaust systems. When surgeon volume was added to the models, it was the strongest predictor of adverse events, with hospital volume and hospital-level factors having no appreciable association with adverse events. CONCLUSION Hospital-level factors were not independent predictors of the association between hospital volume and orthopedic adverse events. The volume of THRs performed by individual surgeons is the most important determinant of orthopedic complications and should be considered in efforts to improve THR outcomes.

[1]  C. Lavernia,et al.  Relationship of surgical volume to short-term mortality, morbidity, and hospital charges in arthroplasty. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  J. Wright,et al.  The effect of hospital volume on the in-hospital complication rate in knee replacement patients. , 1998, Health services research.

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

[4]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Relationship between the Volume of Total Hip Replacements Performed by Providers and the Rates of Postoperative Complications in the State of Washington* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  E L Hannan,et al.  The relation between volume and outcome in health care. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  A Milstein,et al.  Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. , 2000, JAMA.

[7]  J. Williams,et al.  Are complication rates for elective primary total hip arthroplasty in Ontario related to surgeon and hospital volumes? A preliminary investigation. , 1998, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[8]  H S Luft,et al.  Selecting Categories of Patients for Regionalization: Implications of the Relationship Between Volume and Outcome , 1986, Medical care.

[9]  W. Rogers,et al.  The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  E. Hannan,et al.  Relationship between provider volume and mortality for carotid endarterectomies in New York state. , 1998, Stroke.

[11]  James G Wright,et al.  Determining the Need for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: The Role of Clinical Severity and Patients’ Preferences , 2001, Medical care.

[12]  The association between hospital volume and survival after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. , 1999 .

[13]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[14]  J. Jollis,et al.  Further evidence concerning the use of a clinical comorbidity index with ICD-9-CM administrative data , 1993 .

[15]  C. Begg,et al.  Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. , 1998, JAMA.

[16]  L. E. Peterson,et al.  Eliciting expert opinion using the Delphi technique: identifying performance indicators for cardiovascular disease. , 1998, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[17]  R Poss,et al.  Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Procedure Volume and Outcomes of Total Hip Replacement in the United States Medicare Population* , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.