Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures.

OBJECTIVE The Leapfrog Group standards for evidence-based hospital referral underwent significant revision in 2003. In addition to other changes, risk-adjusted mortality and process of care measures now augment or replace volume standards for some procedures. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential benefits of these newly expanded standards. METHODS Leapfrog's 2003 standards were based on minimum volume standards alone for 2 operations (esophagectomy, pancreatectomy), volume standards and a process measure (perioperative beta blockade) for 1 operation (abdominal aortic aneurysm repair), and volume standards coupled with risk-adjusted mortality rates for 2 operations (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] and percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]). We used data from the 2000 Nationwide Inpatient Sample to determine eligible surgical populations, volume-outcome associations, and risk-adjusted hospital mortality rates for the 5 operations. A recent meta-analysis was used to estimate the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blocker use. RESULTS Approximately 23,790 patients died in 2000 in the United States undergoing 1 of the 5 procedures. We estimate that full implementation of the Leapfrog standards would have averted 7818 of these deaths: CABG (4089), PCI (3016), elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (356), esophageal resection (180), and pancreatic resection (177). For CABG and PCI, standards based on risk-adjusted mortality rates would save at least 5 times more lives than those based on volume criteria alone. CONCLUSIONS Widespread implementation of the 2003 Leapfrog standards for evidence-based referral could avert a large number of surgical deaths. For some procedures, standards comprised of process of care or direct outcome measures would be more effective than those based on volume alone.

[1]  S. Khuri,et al.  Invited commentary: Surgeons, not General Motors, should set standards for surgical care. , 2001, Surgery.

[2]  K. Johansen,et al.  Invited commentary: Physician responses to purchaser quality initiatives for surgical procedures. , 2001, Surgery.

[3]  D. Lansky,et al.  Consumers and quality-driven health care: a call to action. , 2003, Health affairs.

[4]  John A. Cowan,et al.  Surgeon volume as an indicator of outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: an effect independent of specialty practice and hospital volume. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[5]  Russell L. Stogsdill,et al.  A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. , 1996, JAMA.

[6]  W. Henderson,et al.  The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. , 2002, Archives of surgery.

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

[8]  E L Hannan,et al.  Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. , 1994, JAMA.

[9]  L. Goldman,et al.  beta-Blockers and reduction of cardiac events in noncardiac surgery: clinical applications. , 2002, JAMA.

[10]  W. Henderson,et al.  The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Non-Veterans Administration Hospitals: Initial Demonstration of Feasibility , 2002, Annals of surgery.

[11]  A Milstein,et al.  Improving the safety of health care: the leapfrog initiative. , 2000, Effective clinical practice : ECP.

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

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

[14]  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.

[15]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Predictors of Cardiac Events After Major Vascular Surgery Role of Clinical Characteristics, Dobutamine Echocardiography, and b-Blocker Therapy , 2001 .

[16]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Predictors of cardiac events after major vascular surgery: Role of clinical characteristics, dobutamine echocardiography, and beta-blocker therapy. , 2001, JAMA.

[17]  T. Russell,et al.  Invited commentary: Volume standards for high-risk operations: an American College of Surgeons' view. , 2001, Surgery.

[18]  L. Goldman,et al.  beta-Blockers and reduction of cardiac events in noncardiac surgery: scientific review. , 2002, JAMA.

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

[20]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. , 2003, JAMA.

[21]  Therese A. Stukel,et al.  Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States , 2004 .

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