Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of the Relationship Between Volume and Performance in the USA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Volume-Outcome Relationship in Oncological Surgery

Part of the book series: Updates in Surgery ((UPDATESSURG))

  • 222 Accesses

Abstract

Compared to many other countries, no national policy in the United States mandates volume minimums for hospitals or surgeons because of criticisms regarding the rigor of the data and its analyses, and because of the unintended consequences for patients and their families that such a policy would have. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) created a task force in 2015 to re-examine the contemporary relationship between volume and outcomes in order to give guidance in terms of credentialing and privileges for surgeons. For practical reasons, it is likely that the ultimate solution for the US will be a balance between centralization of high-risk procedures to high-volume centers and nationwide improvement of the facilities, resources and processes of care at low-volume centers, where a large percentage of the US population still receives surgical care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Luft HS, Bunker JB, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1979;301(25):1364–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1128–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(22):2117–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(22):2128–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu JH, Zingmond DS, McGory ML, et al. Disparities in the utilization of high-volume hospitals for complex surgery. JAMA. 2006;296(16):1973–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Khuri SF, Henderson WG. The case against volume as a measure of quality of surgical care. World J Surg. 2005;29(10):1222–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Russell TR. Invited commentary: volume standards for high-risk operations: an American College of Surgeons’ view. Surgery. 2001;130(3):423–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shahian DM, Normand SL. The volume-outcome relationship: from Luft to Leapfrog. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(3):1048–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ravi B, Jenkinson R, Austin PC, et al. Relation between surgeon volume and risk of complications after total hip arthroplasty: propensity score matched cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348:g3284. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Adam MA, Thomas S, Youngwirth L, et al. Is there a minimum number of thyroidectomies a surgeon should perform to optimize patient outcomes? Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):402–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Fraser I. Volume thresholds and hospital characteristics in the United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(2):167–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(6):511–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. LaPar DJ, Kron IL, Jones DR, et al. Hospital procedure volume should not be used as a measure of surgical quality. Ann Surg. 2012;256(4):606–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Urbach DR, Baxter NN. Does it matter what a hospital is “high volume” for? Specificity of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data. BMJ. 2004;328(7442):737–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. The Leapfrog Group. Surgical Volume. 2019. https://www.leapfroggroup.org/ratings-reports/surgical-volume. Accessed 30 Apr 2020.

  16. Urbach DR. Pledging to eliminate low-volume surgery. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(15):1388–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sheetz KH, Chhabra KR, Smith ME, et al. Association of discretionary hospital volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery with patient outcomes and access, 2005–2016. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(11):1005–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, et al. Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA. 2000;283(9):1159–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Marth NJ, Goodman DC. Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA. 2003;290(20):2703–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu JB, Bilimoria KY, Mallin K, Winchester DP. Patient characteristics associated with undergoing cancer operations at low-volume hospitals. Surgery. 2017;161(2):433–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Finlayson SR, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN, Nease RF Jr. Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med Care. 1999;37(2):204–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwartz DM, Fong ZV, Warshaw AL, et al. The hidden consequences of the volume pledge: “no patient left behind”? Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):273–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. American College of Surgeons. Statement on credentialing and privileging and volume performance issues. 2018. https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/111-credentialing. Accessed 30 Apr 2020.

  24. O’Mahoney PRA, Yeo HL, Sedrakyan A, et al. Centralization of pancreatoduodenectomy a decade later: impact of the volume-outcome relationship. Surgery. 2016;159(6):1528–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Massarweh NN, Flum DR, Symons RG, et al. A critical evaluation of the impact of Leapfrog’s evidence-based hospital referral. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212(2):150–9.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jason B. Liu

  2. Department of Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Hospital at Weill Cornell, New York, NY, USA

    Fabrizio Michelassi

Authors
  1. Jason B. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabrizio Michelassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Michelassi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy

    Marco Montorsi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Liu, J.B., Michelassi, F. (2021). Implications of the Relationship Between Volume and Performance in the USA. In: Montorsi, M. (eds) Volume-Outcome Relationship in Oncological Surgery. Updates in Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51806-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51806-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-51805-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-51806-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation