11064 Background: Widespread health system integration of hospitals continues to reshape the landscape of U.S. healthcare delivery. While complex cancer care has become centralized to high-volume centers, care for common cancers happens across the spectrum of hospital sizes, with known variation in receipt of evidence-based practice (EBP) based on system affiliation. Strategies are needed to evaluate system performance in order to identify system characteristics and processes that contribute to high-quality cancer care. Methods: Using a novel data linkage between the National Cancer Database and AHRQ Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, adult patients treated for breast, colon, melanoma, and thyroid cancers between 2010 and 2020 at Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospitals were identified. Systems were categorized based on number of CoC hospitals (small, 2-3; medium, 4-9; large, 10+). Eight EBP measures were developed using national multidisciplinary guidelines, and measure-specific cohorts were extracted to calculate system-level EBP performance and within-system variation using mixed effects multivariable logistic regression models. Systems were then ranked across all measures for performance and variation, and average rankings were compared by system size. Results: 3,052,453 patients with breast (60.0%), colon (17.0%), melanoma (14.0%), and thyroid (9.0%) cancers were treated at 866 CoC hospitals in 368 health systems. The 8-measure analytic cohort had 104 systems, most of which were small systems (n=74, 71.2%). Large systems (n=9, 8.7%) had worse average performance rankings compared to medium or small systems, though this was not statistically significant (p=0.1) (Table). A significant increase in within-system variation (as measured by average ranking of variability across EBP measures) was seen with increasing system size (p<0.001). Conclusions: Significant variation in EBP performance for common cancers was noted based on health system size in this large, contemporary cohort, with greater within-system variation as system size increased. Future work will identify modifiable system characteristics associated with performance that could aid system leaders and policy makers to design, measure, and incentivize systems that employ effective cancer care delivery strategies. System rankings from 1 to 104 (best to worst), averaged over all measures; data presented as median (IQR). [Table: see text]
Read full abstract