LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Combining Surgical Outcomes and Patient Experiences to Evaluate Hospital Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery Quality

Photo from wikipedia

BackgroundAssessments of surgical quality should consider both surgeon and patient perspectives simultaneously. Focusing on patients undergoing major gastrointestinal cancer surgery, we sought to characterize hospitals, and their patients, on both… Click to show full abstract

BackgroundAssessments of surgical quality should consider both surgeon and patient perspectives simultaneously. Focusing on patients undergoing major gastrointestinal cancer surgery, we sought to characterize hospitals, and their patients, on both these axes of quality.MethodsUsing the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry, hospitals were profiled on a risk-adjusted composite measure of death or serious morbidity (DSM) generated from patients who underwent colectomy, esophagectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy for cancer between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. These hospitals were also profiled using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. Highest-performing hospitals on both quality axes, and their respective patients, were compared to the lowest-performing hospitals.ResultsOverall, 60,526 patients underwent their cancer operation at 530 hospitals. There were 38 highest- and 48 lowest-performing hospitals. The correlation between quality axes was poor (ρ = 0.10). Compared to the lowest-performing hospitals, the highest-performing hospitals were more often NCI-designated cancer centers (29.0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.002) and cared for a lower proportion of Medicaid patients (0.14 vs. 0.23, p < 0.001). Patients who had their operations at the lowest- versus highest-performing hospitals were more often black (17.2% vs. 8.4%, p < 0.001), Hispanic (8.3% vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001), functionally dependent (3.8% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001), and not admitted from home (4.4% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsHospital performance varied when assessed by both risk-adjusted surgical outcomes and patient experiences. In this study, poor-performing hospitals appeared to be disproportionately serving disadvantaged and minority cancer patients.

Keywords: cancer surgery; quality; gastrointestinal cancer; cancer; performing hospitals

Journal Title: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Year Published: 2018

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.