You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Evidence-based Medicine & Outcomes III1 Apr 2010112 HOSPITAL-LEVEL VARIATION IN DISPOSITION AND READMISSION AFTER SURGERY FOR UROLOGIC CANCERS John L. Gore, Jonathan L. Wright, Hunter Wessells, and Michael P. Porter John L. GoreJohn L. Gore More articles by this author , Jonathan L. WrightJonathan L. Wright More articles by this author , Hunter WessellsHunter Wessells More articles by this author , and Michael P. PorterMichael P. Porter More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.162AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Unexplained variation in outcomes after common surgeries may subtend a quality of care concern. Evaluating and understanding variation in surgical outcomes may identify processes and policy measures that effect surgical quality improvement. We sought to examine hospital-level variation in outcomes after inpatient urologic oncology procedures in the state of Washington. METHODS We accessed Washington state hospital claims (Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System [CHARS] data) for the years 2003-2007. The CHARS database includes inpatient claims linked at the patient level such that all readmissions and subsequent inpatient procedures are captured. Using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition procedure codes, we identified subjects undergoing radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy, and radical cystectomy. We measured postoperative length of stay (LOS), death, readmissions, and Agency for Healthcare Quality Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs). We adjusted hospital-level outcomes by patient age and comorbidity. RESULTS We identified 8,228 men who underwent prostatectomy from 51 hospitals, 3,018 nephrectomy patients from 51 hospitals, and 853 cystectomy patients from 37 hospitals. The Table lists age- and comorbidity-adjusted length of stay, 30-day death rates and 1-year readmission rates by hospital volume quartile for each procedure (* indicates p<0.05 compared with volume quartile 4). Complications captured by PSIs were rare. Higher volume hospitals trended toward lower LOS and readmission rates compared with lower volume hospitals. Postoperative death was uncommon after prostatectomy and nephrectomy. Higher volume hospitals had lower 30-day death rates after radical cystectomy than lower volume hospitals, but this difference was not statistically significant. Table 1. Adjusted rates of readmission, alternate disposition, an d death after inpatient urologic oncology surgeries Procedure volume quartile 1 – lowest 2 3 4 - highest Radical prostatectomy LOS (days) 3.0⁎ 2.8⁎ 2.8⁎ 0.6 30-day death (%) 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.11 1-year readmission (no.) 0.17 0.18⁎ 0.14 0.00 Radical nephrectomy LOS (days) 5.0 4.5 4.7 4.5 30-day death (%) 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 1-year readmission (no.) 0.56 0.38 0.42 0.34 Radical cystectomy LOS (days) 9.6 10.6 9.9 9.8 30-day death (%) 4.5 4.2 3.4 0.48 1-year readmission (no.) 0.91 1.1 1.4 0.72 ⁎ p<0.05 for comparison with procedure volume quartile 4. CONCLUSIONS Hospital-level variation may confound the care of urologic cancer patients in the state of Washington. Hospitals with lower surgical volume had higher death and readmission rates than higher volume hospitals for radical prostatectomy, radical nephrectomy, and radical cystectomy. Transparent reporting of surgical outcomes and local quality improvement initiatives may ameliorate the variation documented. Seattle, WA© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e46 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information John L. Gore More articles by this author Jonathan L. Wright More articles by this author Hunter Wessells More articles by this author Michael P. Porter More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract