Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 12, pp 2114–2122 | Cite as

Impact of Hospital Teaching Status on Length of Stay and Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Complex Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery in the USA

  • Omar Hyder
  • Teviah Sachs
  • Aslam Ejaz
  • Gaya Spolverato
  • Timothy M. Pawlik
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

To define the impact of hospital teaching status on length of stay and mortality for patients undergoing complex hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery in the USA.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified 285,442 patient records that involved a liver resection, pancreatoduodenectomy, other pancreatic resection, or hepaticojejunostomy between years 2000 and 2010. Year-wise distribution of procedures at teaching and non-teaching hospitals was described. The impact of teaching status on in-hospital mortality for operations performed at hospitals in the top tertile of procedure volume was determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

A majority of patients were under 65 years of age (59.6 %), white (74.0 %), admitted on an elective basis (77.3 %), and had a low comorbidity burden (70.5 %). Ninety percent were operated upon at hospitals in the top tertile of yearly procedure volume. Among patients undergoing an operation at a hospital in the top tertile of procedure volume (>25/year), non-teaching status was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death (OR 1.47 [1.3, 1.7]). Other factors associated with increased risk of mortality were older patient age (OR 2.52 [2.3, 2.8]), male gender (OR 1.73 [1.6, 1.9]), higher comorbidity burden (OR 1.49 [1.3, 1.7]), non-elective admission (OR 3.32 [2.9, 4.0]), and having a complication during in-hospital stay (OR 2.53 [2.2, 3.0]), while individuals with private insurance had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.45 [0.4, 0.5]). After controlling for other covariates, undergoing complex HPB surgery at a non-teaching hospital remained independently associated with 32 % increased odds of death as (OR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11–1.58; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Even among high-volume hospitals, patients undergoing complex HPB have better outcomes at teaching vs. non-teaching hospitals. While procedural volume is an established factor associated with surgical outcomes among patients undergoing complex HPB procedures, other hospital-level factors such as teaching status have an important impact on peri-operative outcomes.

Keywords

Teaching hospital Liver resection Pancreaticoduodenectomy Length of stay 

References

  1. 1.
    Data on teaching hospitals and charity care, 2010, Association of American Medical Colleges.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sorra, J., et al., Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture: 2012 User Comparative Database Report, 2012, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khuri, S.F., et al., Comparison of surgical outcomes between teaching and nonteaching hospitals in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ann Surg, 2001. 234(3): p. 370–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stewart, D.B., et al., Rectal Cancer and Teaching Hospitals: Hospital Teaching Status Affects Use of Neoadjuvant Radiation and Survival for Rectal Cancer Patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2013. 20(4): p. 1156–1163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grosskopf, S., D. Margaritis, and V. Valdmanis, Comparing teaching and non-teaching hospitals: a frontier approach (teaching vs. non-teaching hospitals). Health Care Manag Sci, 2001. 4(2): p. 83–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koval, K.J., C.L. Rust, and K.F. Spratt, The effect of hospital setting and teaching status on outcomes after hip fracture. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ), 2011. 40(1): p. 19–28.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, S.L., A. Yaghoubian, and C. de Virgilio, A Multi-Institutional Comparison of Pediatric Appendicitis Outcomes Between Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals. Journal of Surgical Education, 2011. 68(1): p. 6–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meguid, R.A., et al., Are surgical outcomes for lung cancer resections improved at teaching hospitals? Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2008. 85(3): p. 1015–1025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimick, J.B., et al., Hospital teaching status and outcomes of complex surgical procedures in the United States. Arch Surg, 2004. 139(2): p. 137–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyder, O., et al., A risk model to predict 90-day mortality among patients undergoing hepatic resection. J Am Coll Surg, 2013. 216(6): p. 1049–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhayani, N.H., et al., Effect of metabolic syndrome on perioperative outcomes after liver surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis. Surgery, 2012. 152(2): p. 218–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, G.S., et al., Morbidity and mortality after hepatic and pancreatic resections: results from one surgeon at a low-volume urban hospital over thirty years. Am J Surg, 2011. 201(4): p. 438–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sato, M., et al., Mortality and morbidity of hepatectomy, radiofrequency ablation, and embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a national survey of 54,145 patients. J Gastroenterol, 2012. 47(10): p. 1125–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, J.H., et al., Surgical Outcomes of Distal Pancreatectomy. Hepatogastroenterology, 2013. 60(126).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhou, W., et al., Stapler vs suture closure of pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg, 2010. 200(4): p. 529–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schneider, E.B., et al., Patient readmission and mortality after surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies. J Am Coll Surg, 2012. 215(5): p. 607–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schneider, E.B., et al., Provider versus patient factors impacting hospital length of stay after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery, 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McPhee, J.T., et al., Perioperative mortality for pancreatectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg, 2007. 246(2): p. 246–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kohn, G.P. and M. Nikfarjam, The effect of surgical volume and the provision of residency and fellowship training on complications of major hepatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg, 2010. 14(12): p. 1981–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    (HCUP), H.C.a.U.P. Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-9-CM. 2013 [cited 2013 05/27]; Available from: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp.
  21. 21.
    Natarajan, S., et al., An extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test for complex sample survey data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C-Applied Statistics, 2012. 61: p. 653–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nathan, H., et al., The volume-outcomes effect in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: hospital versus surgeon contributions and specificity of the relationship. J Am Coll Surg, 2009. 208(4): p. 528–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, C.G., S. Jo, and J.S. Kim, Impact of surgical volume on nationwide hospital mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy. World J Gastroenterol, 2012. 18(31): p. 4175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dimick, J.B., et al., Hepatic resection in the United States: indications, outcomes, and hospital procedural volumes from a nationally representative database. Arch Surg, 2003. 138(2): p. 185–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fisher, S.B., et al., A comparison of right posterior sectorectomy with formal right hepatectomy: a dual-institution study. HPB (Oxford), 2013.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jha, A.K., et al., The long-term effect of premier pay for performance on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med, 2012. 366(17): p. 1606–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    AHRQuality IndicatorsInpatient Quality Indicators Technical SpecificationsRockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Version 4.5, May 2013.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Milstein, A., et al., Improving the safety of health care: the leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract, 2000. 3(6): p. 313–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mueller, S.K., S. Lipsitz, and L.S. Hicks, Impact of hospital teaching intensity on quality of care and patient outcomes. Med Care, 2013. 51(7): p. 567–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dimick, J.B., H.G. Welch, and J.D. Birkmeyer, Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA, 2004. 292(7): p. 847–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gopaldas, R.R., et al., Impact of surgeon demographics and technique on outcomes after esophageal resections: a nationwide study. Ann Thorac Surg, 2013. 95(3): p. 1064–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ben-Haim, M., R. Nakache, and J.M. Klausner, [Hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and abdominal organ transplantation, a defined subspecialty, integrated within the surgical division: professional, operative and educational aspects]. Harefuah, 2009. 148(4): p. 215–8, 278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Csikesz, N.G., et al., Surgical specialization and operative mortality in hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) surgery. J Gastrointest Surg, 2008. 12(9): p. 1534–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taylor, D.H., Jr., D.J. Whellan, and F.A. Sloan, Effects of admission to a teaching hospital on the cost and quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries. N Engl J Med, 1999. 340(4): p. 293–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Castleberry, A.W., et al., Resident Education in the Era of Patient Safety: A Nationwide Analysis of Outcomes and Complications in Resident-Assisted Oncologic Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol, 2013.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kiran, R.P., et al., Impact of resident participation in surgical operations on postoperative outcomes: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg, 2012. 256(3): p. 469–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jurgaitis, J., et al., Controlled-surgical education in clinical liver transplantation is not associated with increased patient risks. Clin Transplant, 2006. 20 Suppl 17: p. 69–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nathan, H. and T.M. Pawlik, Limitations of claims and registry data in surgical oncology research. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2008. 15(2): p. 415–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    SEER-Medicare Training. 2013 [cited 2013; Available from: http://healthservices.cancer.gov/seermedicare/considerations/training.html.
  40. 40.
    Billingsley, K.G., et al., Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery: understanding the volume-outcome relationship. Arch Surg, 2007. 142(1): p. 23–31; discussion 32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omar Hyder
    • 1
  • Teviah Sachs
    • 1
  • Aslam Ejaz
    • 1
  • Gaya Spolverato
    • 1
  • Timothy M. Pawlik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, School of MedicineJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations