Abstract
Although not ideal for all situations, provider volume is particularly suited for measuring surgical quality in certain contexts. Specifically, we believe that for uncommon operations with a strong volumes–outcome effect, provider volume may be the most informative performance measure. Because of the relative ease of determining provider volume, it will continue to be used in value-based purchasing and public reporting efforts. With increasing momentum from outside the profession of surgery, it is particularly important for surgeons to participate in making decisions regarding situations where volume may be an appropriate measure of quality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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;137:511–520
Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, et al. Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. J.A.M.A. 2000;283:1159–1166
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002;346:1128–1137
Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the 2003 Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135:569–575
Khuri SF. Invited commentary: surgeons, not General Motors, should set standards for surgical care. Surgery 2001;130:429–431
Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann. Surg. 1999;230:414–429
Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr, Bernard H, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery: the relationship between inhospital mortality rate and surgical volume after controlling for clinical risk factors. Med. Care 1991;29:1094–1107
Edwards EB, Roberts JP, McBride MA, et al. The effect of the volume of procedures at transplantation centers on mortality after liver transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med 1999;341:2049–2053
Chen J, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. Do “America’s Best Hospitals” perform better for acute myocardial infarction? N. Engl. J. Med. 1999;340:286–292
Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;349:2117–2127
AHRQ Quality Indicators—Guide to Inpatient Quality Indicators: Quality of Care in Hospitals—Volume, Mortality, and Utilization, Rockville. MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2002, AHRQ pub. No. 02-R0204
Romano PS, Zhou H. Do well-publicized risk-adjusted outcomes reports affect hospital volume? Med. Care 2004;42367–42377
Marshall MN, Romano PS, Davies HT. How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care? Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2004;16(Suppl 1):I57–I63
Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, et al. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. J.A.M.A. 2000;283:1866–1874
Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ. Measuring quality in surgery: structure, process, or outcomes? J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2004;198:626–632
Rathore SS, Epstein AJ, Volpp KG, et al. Hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery volume and patient mortality, 1998–2000. Ann. Surg. 2004;239:110–117
Acknowledgments
Dr. Justin Dimick was supported by a Veterans Affairs Special Fellowship Program in Outcomes Research. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dimick, J.B., Birkmeyer, J.D. & Upchurch, G.R. Measuring Surgical Quality: What’s the Role of Provider Volume?. World J. Surg. 29, 1217–1221 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7989-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7989-4