Defining the Volume-Quality Debate: Is It the Surgeon, the Center, or the Training?

ABSTRACT

The quality movement in health care is ubiquitous in our society. The volume-quality debate is a central component of this that affects surgeons. In colorectal surgery and other fields, studies have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients having care provided at higher volume centers. What is unclear about this relationship however, is whether this improvement is related to the center, the surgeon, or the surgeon's training and experience. Some studies have tried to better examine this relationship and have suggested that limitations in administrative data may exaggerate the impact of a high-volume center. The use of crude mortality as the primary outcome instead of more specific outcomes such as cancer recurrence, inadequate risk data, and the failure to account for clustering of cases are other important limitations.

Although higher volume likely equates to higher quality in some form, this may be more related to surgeon-specific factors rather than high-volume centers alone. The role of subspecialization, especially colorectal-trained surgeons with a high individual case volume may be the most important predictor of higher quality in colorectal surgery. This relationship may be especially important for the treatment of rectal cancer. The relationship of volume to outcomes is difficult to understand, and to appropriately answer these questions will require the collection and analysis of comprehensive, risk-adjusted data after adequate outcome measures are defined. This will only occur with significant institutional support, and a commitment to follow outcomes longitudinally and implement necessary changes to improve outcomes.

KEYWORDS

Colorectal surgery - volume-outcomes - surgical outcomes - subspecialization

REFERENCES

• 1 Peskin G W. Quality Care in Surgery.  Arch Surg. 2002;  137 13-14
• 2 Birkmeyer J D, Dimick J B, Birkmeyer N JO. Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcome?.  J Am Coll Surg.. 2004;  198 626-632
• 3 Hannan E L, Kilburn H, Racz M et al.. Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State.  JAMA. 1994;  271 761-766
• 4 Hannan E L, Siu A L, Kumar D, Kilburn H. The decline in coronary artery bypass graft surgery mortality in New York State. The role of surgeon volume.  JAMA. 1995;  273 209-213
• 5 Gordon T A, Bowman H M, Bass E B et al.. Complex gastrointestinal surgery: impact of provider experience on clinical and economic outcomes.  J Am Coll Surg. 1999;  189 45-56
• 6 Dimick J B, Cowan Jr J A, Upchurch Jr G R, Colletti L M. Hospital volume and surgical outcomes for elderly patients with colorectal cancer in the United States.  J Surg Res. 2003;  114 50-56
• 7 Birkmeyer J D, Siewers A E, Finlayson E V et al.. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.  N Engl J Med. 2002;  346 1128-1137
• 8 Rabeneck L, Davila J A, Thompson M, El-Seraq H B. Surgical volume and long-term survival following surgery for colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health-Care System.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;  99 668-675
• 9 Schrag D, Cramer L D, Bach P B et al.. Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer.  JAMA. 2000;  284 3028-3035
• 10 Finlayson E V, Goodney P P, Birkmeyer J D et al.. Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study.  Arch Surg. 2003;  138 721-725
• 11 Ko C Y, Chang J T, Chaudhry S. Are high-volume surgeons and hospitals the most important predictors of in-hospital outcome for colon cancer resection.  Surgery. 2002;  132 268-273
• 12 Hannan E L, O'Donnell J F, Kilburn Jr H et al.. Investigation of the relationship between volume and mortality for surgical procedures performed in New York State hospitals.  JAMA. 1989;  262 503-510
• 13 Urbach D R, Bell C M, Austin P C. Differences in operative mortality between high- and low-volume hospitals in Ontario for 5 major surgical procedures: estimating the number of lives potentially saved through regionalization.  CMAJ. 2003;  168 1409-1414
• 14 Urbach D R, Baxter N N. Does it matter what a hospital is “high volume” for? Specifically of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data.  Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;  13 379-383
• 15 Simunovic M, Rempel E, Theriault M E, Coates A. Influence of hospital characteristics on operative death and survival of patients after major cancer surgery in Ontario.  Can J Surg. 2006;  49 251-258
• 16 Panageas K S, Schrag D, Riedel E et al.. The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;  139 658-665
• 17 Lawthers A G, McCarthy E P, Davis R B et al.. Identification of in-hospital complications from claims data: Is it valid?.  Med Care. 2000;  38 785-795
• 18 Iezzoni L I, Foley S M, Daley J et al.. Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias: Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality.  JAMA. 1992;  267 2197-2203
• 19 Jencks S F, Williams D K, Kay T L. Assessing hospital-associated deaths from discharge data: the role of length of stay and comorbidities.  JAMA. 1988;  260 2240-2246
• 20 Iezzoni L I, Daley J, Heeren T et al.. Identifying complications of care using administrative data.  Med Care. 1994;  32 700-715
• 21 Meyerhardt J A, Catalano P J, Schrag D, Ayanian J Z. Association of hospital procedure volume and outcomes in patients with colon cancer at high risk for recurrence.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;  139 649-657
• 22 Schrag D, Panageas K S, Riedel E et al.. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection.  J Surg Oncol. 2003;  83 68-79
• 23 Dubois R W, Rogers W H, Moxley III J H et al.. Hospital inpatient mortality: is it a predictor of quality?.  N Engl J Med. 1987;  317 1674-1680
• 24 Dubois R W, Brook R H. Preventable deaths: who, how often, and why?.  Ann Intern Med. 1988;  109 582-589
• 25 Platell C, Lim D, Tajudeen N, Tan J L, Wong K. Does surgical sub-specilization influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer?.  W J Gastroenterol. 2003;  9 961-964
• 26 Schrag D, Panageas K S, Riedel E et al.. Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection.  Ann Surg. 2002;  236 583-592
• 27 Purves H, Pietrobon R, Hervey S et al.. Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;  48 195-204
• 28 Harling H, Bulow S, Moller L N, Jorgensen T. Hospital volume and outcome of rectal cancer surgery in Denmark 1994-99.  Colorectal Dis. 2005;  7 90-95
• 29 Hodgson D C, Zhang W, Zaslavsky A M et al.. Relation of hospital volume to colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;  95 708-716
• 30 Harmon J W, Tang D G, Gordon T A, Bowman H M. Hospital volume can serve as surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection.  Ann Surg. 1999;  230 404-411
• 31 Galandiuk S, Rao M K, Heine M F et al.. Mutual reporting of process and outcomes enhances quality outcomes for colon and rectal resections.  Surgery. 2004;  136 833-841
• 32 Di Carlo A, Andtbacka R H, Shrier I et al.. The value of specialization - is there an outcome difference in the management of fistulas complicating diverticulitis.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;  44 1456-1463
• 33 Edmondson A C, Bohmer R, Pisano G P. Speeding up team learning.  Harvard Bus Rev. 2001;  79 125-134
• 34 Bosio R M, Smith B M, Serrano-Ayber P, Senagore A J. Implementation of laparoscopic colectomy with fast-track care in the academic medical center: Benefits of a fully ascended learning curve and specialty expertise. Paper presented at: Midwest Surgical Association August 8, 2006 Mackinac Island, MI;