Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Singh discusses her research in India on infertility

Johnston concerned declines in teen smoking threatened by e-cigarettes

Frey discusses book Diversity Explosion

Highlights

Apply for 2-year NICHD Postdoctoral Fellowships that begin September 2015

PSC Fall 2014 Newsletter now available

Martha Bailey and Nicolas Duquette win Cole Prize for article on War on Poverty

Michigan's graduate sociology program tied for 4th with Stanford in USN&WR rankings

Next Brown Bag

Monday, Jan 12
Filiz Garip, Changing Dynamics of Mexico-U.S. Migration

Identifying High-Quality Bariatric Surgery Centers: Hospital Volume or Risk-Adjusted Outcomes?

Publication Abstract

Dimick, Justin B., Nicholas Osborne, Lauren Nicholas, and John D. Birkmeyer. 2009. "Identifying High-Quality Bariatric Surgery Centers: Hospital Volume or Risk-Adjusted Outcomes?" Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 209(6): 702-706.

Background Payers and professional organizations are expanding accreditation and “centers of excellence” programs in bariatric surgery. Rather than directly measuring outcomes, most programs rely on procedure volume. We sought to determine whether risk-adjusted outcomes or hospital volume were better at predicting future hospital morbidity with bariatric surgery.

Study Design We identified all patients who underwent gastric bypass in the New York State Inpatient database (n = 32,381 patients, n = 105 hospitals). Morbidity was ascertained using a previously validated combination of diagnostic and procedure codes. We first calculated the risk-adjusted morbidity and volume at each hospital during a 2-year period (2003 to 2004). We then ascertained the proportion of hospital-level variation explained by each measure using hierarchical modeling techniques. Finally, we compared the ability of each measure to predict future performance, as assessed with risk-adjusted morbidity, in the next 2 years (2005 to 2006).

Results Risk-adjusted morbidity explained 83% of future hospital-level variation in morbidity compared with only 21% for hospital volume. When comparing the “best” with the “worst” hospital quartiles, risk-adjusted morbidity predicted a more than fourfold difference in future performance (1.7% versus 7.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 4.5; 95% CI, 3.5 to 5.9). Hospital volume predicted only a twofold difference (2.5% versus 4.5%; OR: 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.4) from the best to worst quartile.

Conclusions Risk-adjusted morbidity is much better than hospital volume at predicting future performance with bariatric surgery. Rather than focusing on volume, accreditation and centers of excellence programs should focus more on directly measuring outcomes.

DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.09.009 (Full Text)

Licensed Access Link

Country of focus: United States of America.

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next