Abstract

BackgroundWhile public reporting of surgical outcomes for noncancer conditions is common, cancer surgeries have generally been excluded. This is true despite numerous studies showing outcomes to differ between hospitals based on their characteristics. Our objective was to assess whether three prerequisites for quality assessment and reporting are present for 30‐day mortality after cancer surgery: low burden for timely reporting, hospital variation, and potential for public health gains.Study DesignWe used Fee‐for‐Service (FFS) Medicare claims to examine the extent of variation in 30‐day cancer surgical mortality between 3860 US hospitals. We included 340 489 surgeries for 12 cancer types for FFS Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years, 2011‐2013. Hierarchical mixed‐effects logistic regression models adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics and with a random hospital effect were fit to obtain hospital‐specific risk‐standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 99% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated a hospital odds ratio to describe the difference in mortality risk for a hospital above vs below average quality and estimated the potential mortality reduction.ResultsThe median number of cancer surgeries per hospital was 34. The median RSMR overall was 2.41% (99% CI 2.28%, 2.66%). In aggregate and for most cancers, variation between hospitals exceeded that due to differences in patient and hospital characteristics. For individual cancers, relative differences exceeded 20% in mortality risk between patients undergoing surgery at a hospital below vs above average quality, with the potential for an estimated 500 deaths prevented annually given hypothetical improvements.ConclusionQuality measurement and reporting of 30‐day mortality for cancer surgery is worthy of consideration.

Highlights

  • While public reporting of surgical outcomes for noncancer conditions is common, cancer surgeries have generally been excluded

  • Based on the distribution of risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs), if hospitals performing in the upper quartile were to improve performance to the median, the reduction in mortality represents the estimated number of lives saved

  • For all surgeries in aggregate, 25% of hospitals performed fewer than 10 cancer surgeries and for 9 cancer sites, 25% of hospitals performed less than 3 site-specific cancer surgery over 3 years

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While public reporting of surgical outcomes for noncancer conditions is common, cancer surgeries have generally been excluded. This is true despite numerous studies showing outcomes to differ between hospitals based on their characteristics. Our objective was to assess whether three prerequisites for quality assessment and reporting are present for 30-day mortality after cancer surgery: low burden for timely reporting, hospital variation, and potential for public health gains. Study Design: We used Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare claims to examine the extent of variation in 30-day cancer surgical mortality between 3860 US hospitals. Relative differences exceeded 20% in mortality risk between patients undergoing surgery at a hospital below vs above average quality, with the potential for an estimated 500 deaths prevented annually given hypothetical improvements. Conclusion: Quality measurement and reporting of 30-day mortality for cancer surgery is worthy of consideration

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.