World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 1241–1244

The Volume–Outcome Relationship: Don’t Believe Everything You See

  • Caprice K. Christian
  • Michael L. Gustafson
  • Rebecca A. Betensky
  • Jennifer Daley
  • Michael J. Zinner
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates methodological limitations of the volume–outcome relationship. A brief overview of quality measurement is followed by a discussion of two important aspects of the relationship.

References

  1. 1.
    Epstein AM. Volume and outcome—it is time to move ahead. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;346:1161–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin M. How Is Volume Related to Quality in Health Care? A Systematic Review of the Research Literature. Washington, DC, National Institute of Medicine, 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, et al. Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. J. A. M. A. 2000;283:1159–1166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    http://www.leapfroggroup.orgGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer CM. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001;130:415–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birkmeyer JD. Should we regionalize major surgery? Potential benefits and policy considerations. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2000;190:341–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, et al. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:71–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Russell TR. Invited commentary: Volume standards for high-risk operations: an American College of Surgeons’ view. Surgery 2001;130:423–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dudley RA, Johansen KL. Invited commentary: physician responses to purchaser quality initiatives for surgical procedures. Surgery 2001;130:425–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khuri SF. Invited commentary: Surgeons, not General Motors, should set standards for surgical care. Surgery 2001;130:429–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daley J. Invited commentary: Quality of care and the volume–outcome relationship—what’s next for surgery? Surgery 2002;131:16–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luft HS, Hunt SS, Maerki SC. The volume–outcome relationship: practice-makes-perfect or selective referral patterns? Health Serv. Res. 1987;22:157–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? J. A. M. A. 1988;1988:1743–1748Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of healthcare. Millbank Mem. Fund Q. 1966;44:S166–S206Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jencks SF, Cuerdon T, Burwen DR, et al. Quality of medical care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries: a profile at state and national levels. J. A. M. A. 2000;284:1670–1676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palmer RH. Process-based measures of quality: the need for detailed clinical data in large health care databases. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997;127:733–738PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palmer RH. Using health outcomes data to compare plans, networks, and providers. Int. J. Quality Healthcare 1998;10:477–483Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khuri SF, Najjar SF, Daley J, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes between teaching and nonteaching hospitals in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ann. Surg. 2001;234:370–382;discussion 382–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Fraser I. Volume thresholds and hospital characteristics in the United States. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hannan EL, Popp AJ, Feustel P, et al. Association of surgical specialty and processes of care with patient outcomes for carotid endarterectomy. Stroke 2001;32:2890–2897PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pitt HA, Murray KP, Bowman HM, et al. Clinical pathway implementation improves outcomes for complex biliary surgery. Surgery 1999;126:751–756;discussion 756–758CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pearson SD, Kleefield SF, Soukop JR, et al. Critical pathways intervention to reduce length of hospital stay. Am. J. Med. 2001;110:175–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sesperez J, Wilson S, Jalaludin B, et al. Trauma case management and clinical pathways: prospective evaluation of their effect on selected patient outcomes in five key trauma conditions. J. Trauma 2001;50:643–639PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim MH, Rachwal W, McHale C, et al. Effect of amiodarone +/− diltiazem +/− beta blocker on frequency of atrial fibrillation, length of hospitalization, and hospital costs after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am. J. Cardiol. 2002;89:1126–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM, 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. J. A. M. A. 1996;275:841–846PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:491–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Daley J, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Risk-adjusted surgical outcomes. Ann. Rev. Med. 2001;52:275–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hannan EL, Radzyner M, Rubin D, et al. The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Surgery 2002;131:6–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cebul RD, Snow RJ, Pine R, et al. Indications, outcomes, and provider volumes for carotid endarterectomy. J. A. M. A. 1998;279:1282–1287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hannan EL, O’Donnell JF, Kilburn H Jr., et al. Investigation of the relationship between volume and mortality for surgical procedures performed in New York State hospitals. J. A. M. A. 1989;262:503–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hannan EL, Popp AJ, Tranmer B, et al. Relationship between provider volume and mortality for carotid endarterectomies in New York State. Stroke 1998;29:2292–2297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Munoz E, Mulloy K, Goldstein J, et al. Costs, quality, and the volume of surgical oncology procedures. Arch. Surg. 1990;125:360–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Betensky RA, et al. The leapfrog volume criteria may fall short in identifying high quality surgical centers. Ann. Surg. 2003;238:447–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    http://www.uhc.edu.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caprice K. Christian
    • 1
  • Michael L. Gustafson
    • 1
  • Rebecca A. Betensky
    • 2
  • Jennifer Daley
    • 3
    • 4
  • Michael J. Zinner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery Brigham and Women’s Hospital BostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics Harvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  3. 3.Tenet Healthcare SystemDallasUSA
  4. 4.Department of Community and Family MedicineDartmouth Medical School, Hinman Box 7250, Strasenburg HallHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations