Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in Scotland: retrospective, national population based study. Harrison, E. M., O'Neill, S., Meurs, T. S., Wong, P. L., Duxbury, M., Paterson-Brown, S., Wigmore, S. J., & Garden, O. J. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 344:e3330, May, 2012. abstract bibtex OBJECTIVES: To define associations between hospital volume and outcomes following cholecystectomy, after adjustment for case mix using a national database. DESIGN: Retrospective, national population based study using multilevel modelling and simulation. SETTING: Locally validated administrative dataset covering all NHS hospitals in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing cholecystectomy between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, 30 day reoperation rate, 30 day readmission rate, and length of stay. RESULTS: We identified 59,918 patients who had a cholecystectomy in one of 37 hospitals: five hospitals had high volumes (\textgreater244 cholecystectomies/year), 10 had medium volumes (173-244), and 22 had low volumes (\textless173). Compared with low and medium volume hospitals, high volume hospitals performed more procedures non-electively (17.1% and 19.5% v 32.8%), completed more procedures laparoscopically (64.7% and 73.8% v 80.9%), and used more operative cholangiography (11.2% and 6.3% v 21.2%; χ(2) test, all P\textless0.001). In a well performing multivariable analysis with bias correction for a low event rate, the odds ratio for death was greater in both the low volume (odds ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.00, P=0.022) and medium volume (1.52, 1.11 to 2.08, P=0.010) groups than in the high volume group. However, in simulation studies, absolute risk differences between volume groups were clinically negligible for patients with average risk (number needed to treat to harm, low v high volume, 3871, 1963 to 17,118), but were significant in patients with higher risk. In models accounting for the hierarchical structure of patients in hospitals, those in medium volume hospitals were more likely to undergo reoperation (odds ratio 1.74, 1.31 to 2.30, P\textless0.001) or be readmitted (1.17, 1.04 to 1.31, P=0.008) after cholecystectomy than those in high volume hospitals. Length of stay was shorter in high volume hospitals than in low (hazard ratio for discharge 0.78, 0.76 to 0.79, P\textless0.001) or medium volume hospitals (0.75, 0.74 to 0.77, P\textless0.001). These differences were also only of clinical significance in patients at higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation among hospitals in the management of gallstone disease and an association between higher hospital volume and better outcome after a cholecystectomy. The relative risk of death is lower in high volume centres, and although absolute risk differences between volume groups are significant for elderly patients and patients with comorbidity, they are clinically negligible for those at average risk.
@article{harrison_hospital_2012,
title = {Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in {Scotland}: retrospective, national population based study},
volume = {344},
issn = {1756-1833},
shorttitle = {Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in {Scotland}},
abstract = {OBJECTIVES: To define associations between hospital volume and outcomes following cholecystectomy, after adjustment for case mix using a national database.
DESIGN: Retrospective, national population based study using multilevel modelling and simulation.
SETTING: Locally validated administrative dataset covering all NHS hospitals in Scotland.
PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing cholecystectomy between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2007.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, 30 day reoperation rate, 30 day readmission rate, and length of stay.
RESULTS: We identified 59,918 patients who had a cholecystectomy in one of 37 hospitals: five hospitals had high volumes ({\textgreater}244 cholecystectomies/year), 10 had medium volumes (173-244), and 22 had low volumes ({\textless}173). Compared with low and medium volume hospitals, high volume hospitals performed more procedures non-electively (17.1\% and 19.5\% v 32.8\%), completed more procedures laparoscopically (64.7\% and 73.8\% v 80.9\%), and used more operative cholangiography (11.2\% and 6.3\% v 21.2\%; χ(2) test, all P{\textless}0.001). In a well performing multivariable analysis with bias correction for a low event rate, the odds ratio for death was greater in both the low volume (odds ratio 1.45, 95\% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.00, P=0.022) and medium volume (1.52, 1.11 to 2.08, P=0.010) groups than in the high volume group. However, in simulation studies, absolute risk differences between volume groups were clinically negligible for patients with average risk (number needed to treat to harm, low v high volume, 3871, 1963 to 17,118), but were significant in patients with higher risk. In models accounting for the hierarchical structure of patients in hospitals, those in medium volume hospitals were more likely to undergo reoperation (odds ratio 1.74, 1.31 to 2.30, P{\textless}0.001) or be readmitted (1.17, 1.04 to 1.31, P=0.008) after cholecystectomy than those in high volume hospitals. Length of stay was shorter in high volume hospitals than in low (hazard ratio for discharge 0.78, 0.76 to 0.79, P{\textless}0.001) or medium volume hospitals (0.75, 0.74 to 0.77, P{\textless}0.001). These differences were also only of clinical significance in patients at higher risk.
CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation among hospitals in the management of gallstone disease and an association between higher hospital volume and better outcome after a cholecystectomy. The relative risk of death is lower in high volume centres, and although absolute risk differences between volume groups are significant for elderly patients and patients with comorbidity, they are clinically negligible for those at average risk.},
language = {ENG},
journal = {BMJ (Clinical research ed.)},
author = {Harrison, Ewen M. and O'Neill, Stephen and Meurs, Thomas S. and Wong, Pang L. and Duxbury, Mark and Paterson-Brown, Simon and Wigmore, Stephen J. and Garden, O. James},
month = may,
year = {2012},
keywords = {Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Cholecystectomy, Female, Gallbladder Diseases, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Scotland, Socioeconomic Factors, Treatment Outcome},
pages = {e3330}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"hTEiYhPdpDeiXBMea","bibbaseid":"harrison-oneill-meurs-wong-duxbury-patersonbrown-wigmore-garden-hospitalvolumeandpatientoutcomesaftercholecystectomyinscotlandretrospectivenationalpopulationbasedstudy-2012","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-12-05T13:23:19.286Z","title":"Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in Scotland: retrospective, national population based study","author_short":["Harrison, E. M.","O'Neill, S.","Meurs, T. S.","Wong, P. L.","Duxbury, M.","Paterson-Brown, S.","Wigmore, S. J.","Garden, O. J."],"year":2012,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/emmanuel.chazard","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in Scotland: retrospective, national population based study","volume":"344","issn":"1756-1833","shorttitle":"Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in Scotland","abstract":"OBJECTIVES: To define associations between hospital volume and outcomes following cholecystectomy, after adjustment for case mix using a national database. DESIGN: Retrospective, national population based study using multilevel modelling and simulation. SETTING: Locally validated administrative dataset covering all NHS hospitals in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing cholecystectomy between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, 30 day reoperation rate, 30 day readmission rate, and length of stay. RESULTS: We identified 59,918 patients who had a cholecystectomy in one of 37 hospitals: five hospitals had high volumes (\\textgreater244 cholecystectomies/year), 10 had medium volumes (173-244), and 22 had low volumes (\\textless173). Compared with low and medium volume hospitals, high volume hospitals performed more procedures non-electively (17.1% and 19.5% v 32.8%), completed more procedures laparoscopically (64.7% and 73.8% v 80.9%), and used more operative cholangiography (11.2% and 6.3% v 21.2%; χ(2) test, all P\\textless0.001). In a well performing multivariable analysis with bias correction for a low event rate, the odds ratio for death was greater in both the low volume (odds ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.00, P=0.022) and medium volume (1.52, 1.11 to 2.08, P=0.010) groups than in the high volume group. However, in simulation studies, absolute risk differences between volume groups were clinically negligible for patients with average risk (number needed to treat to harm, low v high volume, 3871, 1963 to 17,118), but were significant in patients with higher risk. In models accounting for the hierarchical structure of patients in hospitals, those in medium volume hospitals were more likely to undergo reoperation (odds ratio 1.74, 1.31 to 2.30, P\\textless0.001) or be readmitted (1.17, 1.04 to 1.31, P=0.008) after cholecystectomy than those in high volume hospitals. Length of stay was shorter in high volume hospitals than in low (hazard ratio for discharge 0.78, 0.76 to 0.79, P\\textless0.001) or medium volume hospitals (0.75, 0.74 to 0.77, P\\textless0.001). These differences were also only of clinical significance in patients at higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation among hospitals in the management of gallstone disease and an association between higher hospital volume and better outcome after a cholecystectomy. The relative risk of death is lower in high volume centres, and although absolute risk differences between volume groups are significant for elderly patients and patients with comorbidity, they are clinically negligible for those at average risk.","language":"ENG","journal":"BMJ (Clinical research ed.)","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Harrison"],"firstnames":["Ewen","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["O'Neill"],"firstnames":["Stephen"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Meurs"],"firstnames":["Thomas","S."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wong"],"firstnames":["Pang","L."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Duxbury"],"firstnames":["Mark"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Paterson-Brown"],"firstnames":["Simon"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wigmore"],"firstnames":["Stephen","J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Garden"],"firstnames":["O.","James"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"May","year":"2012","keywords":"Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Cholecystectomy, Female, Gallbladder Diseases, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Scotland, Socioeconomic Factors, Treatment Outcome","pages":"e3330","bibtex":"@article{harrison_hospital_2012,\n\ttitle = {Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in {Scotland}: retrospective, national population based study},\n\tvolume = {344},\n\tissn = {1756-1833},\n\tshorttitle = {Hospital volume and patient outcomes after cholecystectomy in {Scotland}},\n\tabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To define associations between hospital volume and outcomes following cholecystectomy, after adjustment for case mix using a national database.\nDESIGN: Retrospective, national population based study using multilevel modelling and simulation.\nSETTING: Locally validated administrative dataset covering all NHS hospitals in Scotland.\nPARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing cholecystectomy between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2007.\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, 30 day reoperation rate, 30 day readmission rate, and length of stay.\nRESULTS: We identified 59,918 patients who had a cholecystectomy in one of 37 hospitals: five hospitals had high volumes ({\\textgreater}244 cholecystectomies/year), 10 had medium volumes (173-244), and 22 had low volumes ({\\textless}173). Compared with low and medium volume hospitals, high volume hospitals performed more procedures non-electively (17.1\\% and 19.5\\% v 32.8\\%), completed more procedures laparoscopically (64.7\\% and 73.8\\% v 80.9\\%), and used more operative cholangiography (11.2\\% and 6.3\\% v 21.2\\%; χ(2) test, all P{\\textless}0.001). In a well performing multivariable analysis with bias correction for a low event rate, the odds ratio for death was greater in both the low volume (odds ratio 1.45, 95\\% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.00, P=0.022) and medium volume (1.52, 1.11 to 2.08, P=0.010) groups than in the high volume group. However, in simulation studies, absolute risk differences between volume groups were clinically negligible for patients with average risk (number needed to treat to harm, low v high volume, 3871, 1963 to 17,118), but were significant in patients with higher risk. In models accounting for the hierarchical structure of patients in hospitals, those in medium volume hospitals were more likely to undergo reoperation (odds ratio 1.74, 1.31 to 2.30, P{\\textless}0.001) or be readmitted (1.17, 1.04 to 1.31, P=0.008) after cholecystectomy than those in high volume hospitals. Length of stay was shorter in high volume hospitals than in low (hazard ratio for discharge 0.78, 0.76 to 0.79, P{\\textless}0.001) or medium volume hospitals (0.75, 0.74 to 0.77, P{\\textless}0.001). These differences were also only of clinical significance in patients at higher risk.\nCONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation among hospitals in the management of gallstone disease and an association between higher hospital volume and better outcome after a cholecystectomy. The relative risk of death is lower in high volume centres, and although absolute risk differences between volume groups are significant for elderly patients and patients with comorbidity, they are clinically negligible for those at average risk.},\n\tlanguage = {ENG},\n\tjournal = {BMJ (Clinical research ed.)},\n\tauthor = {Harrison, Ewen M. and O'Neill, Stephen and Meurs, Thomas S. and Wong, Pang L. and Duxbury, Mark and Paterson-Brown, Simon and Wigmore, Stephen J. and Garden, O. James},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Cholecystectomy, Female, Gallbladder Diseases, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Scotland, Socioeconomic Factors, Treatment Outcome},\n\tpages = {e3330}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Harrison, E. M.","O'Neill, S.","Meurs, T. S.","Wong, P. L.","Duxbury, M.","Paterson-Brown, S.","Wigmore, S. J.","Garden, O. J."],"key":"harrison_hospital_2012","id":"harrison_hospital_2012","bibbaseid":"harrison-oneill-meurs-wong-duxbury-patersonbrown-wigmore-garden-hospitalvolumeandpatientoutcomesaftercholecystectomyinscotlandretrospectivenationalpopulationbasedstudy-2012","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Adult","Age Factors","Aged","Cholecystectomy","Female","Gallbladder Diseases","Hospitalization","Humans","Male","Middle Aged","Retrospective Studies","Scotland","Socioeconomic Factors","Treatment Outcome"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["hospital","volume","patient","outcomes","cholecystectomy","scotland","retrospective","national","population","based","study","harrison","o'neill","meurs","wong","duxbury","paterson-brown","wigmore","garden"],"keywords":["adult","age factors","aged","cholecystectomy","female","gallbladder diseases","hospitalization","humans","male","middle aged","retrospective studies","scotland","socioeconomic factors","treatment outcome"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["XiRGowmyYWQpwjiC9"]}