Abstract
The chapter considers the complex interaction of numerous factors that determine the nature of any volume—outcome relationship within surgery. The methodological basis for assessing the volume– outcome relationship in surgery and some of the limitations that surround it are discussed. Commonly used outcome measurements are explored, with their possible alternatives and consideration made of the interaction between the surgeon's volume and institutional volume and their effect on patient outcome. Finally, we examine the public health impact and health policy implications of incorporating volume–outcome relationship research into health service provision. The need for future research in this area to be conducted under the guidance of a methodological framework is justified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsAbbreviations
- HES:
-
Hospital Episode Statistics
- U.K.:
-
United Kingdom
- U.S.:
-
United States
References
Aylin P, Bottle A, Majeed A (2007) Use of administrative data or clinical databases as predictors of risk of death in hospital: comparison of models. BMJ 334:1044
Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB et al (2002) Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 346:1138–1144
Bianco FJ Jr, Riedel ER, Begg CB et al (2005) Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: further evidence that technique matters. J Urol 173:2099–2103
Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE et al (2003) Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 349:2117–2127
Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Betensky RA et al (2005) The volume–outcome relationship: don't believe everything you see. World J Surg 29:1241–1244
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Fraser I (2003) Volume thresholds and hospital characteristics in the United States. Health Aff (Millwood) 22:167–177
Goodney PP, Stukel TA, Lucas FL et al (2003) Hospital volume, length of stay, and readmission rates in high-risk surgery. Ann Surg 238:161–167
Halm E, Lee C, Chassin M (2000) How is volume related to quality in Healthcare? A systematic review of the research literature. In: Hewitt M (ed) Interpreting the volume— outcome relationship in the context of Healthcare quality: workshop summary, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, National Academic Press, pp Appendix C, 27–102
Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR (2002) Is volume related to outcome in Healthcare? A systematic review and method-ologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 137:511–520
Harmon JW, Tang DG, Gordon TA et al (1999) Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann Surg 230:404–411; discussion 411–413
Hewitt M (2000) Interpreting the volume–outcome relationship in the context of Healthcare quality: workshop summary, Institute of Medicine, Washington DC, National Academic Press
Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE (2000) Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 18:2327–2340
Hong D, Tandan VR, Goldsmith CH et al (2002) Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to use an article reporting population-based volume—outcome relationships in surgery. Can J Surg 45:109–115
Killeen SD, O'Sullivan MJ, Coffey JC et al (2005) Provider volume and outcomes for oncological procedures. Br J Surg 92:389–402
Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC (1979) Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med 301:1364–1369
Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM et al (2006) Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States. J Clin Oncol 24:626–634
Mason A, Goldacre MJ, Bettley G et al (2006) Using routine data to define clinical case-mix and compare hospital outcomes in urology. BJU Int 97:1145–1147
Panageas KS, Schrag D, Riedel E et al (2003) The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes. Ann Intern Med 139:658–665
Roohan PJ, Bickell NA, Baptiste MS et al (1998) Hospital volume differences and five-year survival from breast cancer. Am J Public Health 88:454–457
Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E et al (2002) Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg 236:583–592
Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E et al (2003) Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J Surg Oncol 83:68–78; discussion 78–79
Spiegelhalter DJ (2005) Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 24:1185–1202
Thiemann DR, Coresh J, Oetgen WJ et al (1999) The association between hospital volume and survival after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 340:1640–1648
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mayer, E., Darzi, L.A., Athanasiou, T. (2010). The Role of Volume–Outcome Relationship in Surgery. In: Athanasiou, T., Debas, H., Darzi, A. (eds) Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71914-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71915-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)