A systematic review and critique of the literature relating hospital or surgeon volume to health outcomes for 3 urological cancer procedures.

PURPOSE We performed a systematic review and critique of the literature of the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in patients undergoing radical surgery for cancer of the bladder, kidney or prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes. RESULTS All included studies were performed in North America. A total of 12 studies were found that related hospital volume to outcomes. For radical prostatectomy and cystectomy all 8 included studies showed improvement in at least 1 outcome measure with increasing volume and never deterioration. For nephrectomy the 4 included studies produced conflicting results. Four studies were found that related surgeon volume to outcomes. All radical prostatectomy and cystectomy studies showed that some outcomes were better with higher surgeon volume and never deterioration. We did not find any studies of the effect of surgeon volume on outcomes after nephrectomy. The 3 studies of the combined effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy or cystectomy suggest that high volume hospitals have better outcomes, in part because of the effect of surgeon volume and vice versa. CONCLUSIONS Outcomes after radical prostatectomy and cystectomy are on average likely to be better if these procedures are performed by and at high volume providers. For radical nephrectomy the evidence is unclear. The impact of volume based policies (increasing volume to improve outcomes) depends on the extent to which "practice makes perfect" explains the observed results. Further studies should explicitly address selective referral and confounding as alternative explanations. Longitudinal studies should be performed to evaluate the impact of volume based policies.

[1]  K. Kizer.  The volume-outcome conundrum. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  C. Begg,et al.  The Effect of Clustering of Outcomes on the Association of Procedure Volume and Surgical Outcomes , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  H. Sox,et al.  Does Practice Really Make Perfect? , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  Caprice K. Christian,et al.  The Leapfrog Volume Criteria May Fall Short in Identifying High-Quality Surgical Centers , 2003, Annals of surgery.

[6]  Afschin Gandjour,et al.  Threshold Volumes Associated With Higher Survival in Health Care: A Systematic Review , 2003, Medical care.

[7]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Hospital Volume, Length of Stay, and Readmission Rates in High-Risk Surgery , 2003, Annals of surgery.

[8]  David A Spain,et al.  Society of University Surgeons position statement on the volume-outcome relationship for surgical procedures. , 2003, Surgery.

[9]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study. , 2003, Archives of surgery.

[10]  N. Smeeton,et al.  Identifying under‐performing surgeons , 2003, BJU international.

[11]  John T. Wei,et al.  Determinants of long-term sexual health outcome after radical prostatectomy measured by a validated instrument. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[12]  D. Forman,et al.  A study of the morbidity, mortality and long-term survival following radical cystectomy and radical radiotherapy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer in Yorkshire. , 2003, European urology.

[13]  S. Normand,et al.  The volume-outcome relationship: from Luft to Leapfrog. , 2003, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[14]  F. Hamdy,et al.  Recent trends in the use of radical prostatectomy in England: the epidemiology of diffusion , 2003, BJU international.

[15]  S. Mehta,et al.  Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  C. Begg,et al.  Taking stock of volume-outcome studies. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  M. Srougi,et al.  Complications in radical cystectomy performed at a teaching hospital. , 2002, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[18]  Ethan A Halm,et al.  Is Volume Related to Outcome in Health Care? A Systematic Review and Methodologic Critique of the Literature , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  K. Tsui,et al.  Improvement of practice performance in urological surgery via clinical pathway implementation , 2002, World Journal of Urology.

[20]  M. Goldacre,et al.  In-hospital deaths as fraction of all deaths within 30 days of hospital admission for surgery: analysis of routine statistics , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United States , 2002 .

[22]  Colin B Begg,et al.  Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  A. Epstein.  Volume and outcome--it is time to move ahead. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  D. Cranston,et al.  Coding errors: a comparative analysis of hospital and prospectively collected departmental data , 2002, BJU international.

[25]  Michael L. Johnson,et al.  Effect of Definition of Mortality on Hospital Profiles , 2002, Medical care.

[26]  R. El-Galley,et al.  Radical prostatectomy in a community practice. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[27]  T. H. Klotz,et al.  Risk adjustment for evaluating the outcome of urological operative procedures. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[28]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. , 2001, Surgery.

[29]  B. Hillner.  Is cancer care best at high-volume providers? , 2001, Current oncology reports.

[30]  B. Hillner,et al.  Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  The effect of hospital volume on mortality and resource use after radical prostatectomy. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[32]  J. Birkmeyer.  Should we regionalize major surgery? Potential benefits and policy considerations. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[33]  S. Yao,et al.  Population-based study of relationships between hospital volume of prostatectomies, patient outcomes, and length of hospital stay. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[34]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Potential benefits of regionalizing major surgery in Medicare patients. , 1999, Effective clinical practice : ECP.

[35]  M. Elhilali,et al.  Thirty-day mortality rates and cumulative survival after radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1998, Urology.

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

[37]  M. Kattan,et al.  Impact of a clinical pathway for radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1998, Urology.

[38]  W. Friedel,et al.  Radical retropubic prostatectomy outcomes at a community hospital. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[39]  L. Iezzoni.  Assessing Quality Using Administrative Data , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[40]  M. Cleves,et al.  Evaluation of two competing methods for calculating Charlson's comorbidity index when analyzing short-term mortality using administrative data. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[41]  A. Sowden,et al.  Concentration and choice in the provision of hospital services. Part I:The relationship between hospital volume and quality of health outcomes , 1997 .

[42]  R E Hall,et al.  Searching for an improved clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[43]  T A Sheldon,et al.  Volume and outcome in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: true association or artefact? , 1995, BMJ.

[44]  C. Heyns,et al.  Surgical complications of radical cystectomy in a teaching hospital. , 1995, South African journal of surgery. Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir chirurgie.

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

[46]  J. Jollis,et al.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. , 1993, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[47]  T. Smith.  Perioperative deaths--detection by linkage of hospital discharge and death registration sub-files. , 1993, Health bulletin.

[48]  R. Deyo,et al.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[49]  E. Fisher,et al.  Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias. Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality? , 1992, JAMA.

[50]  D. K. Williams,et al.  Assessing hospital-associated deaths from discharge data. The role of length of stay and comorbidities. , 1988, JAMA.

[51]  N. Roos,et al.  Monitoring adverse outcomes of surgery using administrative data , 1987, Health care financing review.

[52]  H. Luft,et al.  The volume-outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective-referral patterns? , 1987, Health services research.

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

[54]  F. Sloan,et al.  In-hospital mortality of surgical patients: is there an empiric basis for standard setting? , 1986, Surgery.

[55]  A. Flood,et al.  Does Practice Make Perfect?: Part I: The Relation Between Hospital Volume and Outcomes for Selected Diagnostic Categories , 1984, Medical care.