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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Starr's findings account for some of the 19% black-white gap in federal sentencing

Frey says suburbs are aging, cities draw millennials

Pfeffer comments on Fed report that reveals 20-year decline in net worth among American families

More News

Highlights

U-M's campus climate survey results discussed in CHE story

U-M honors James Jackson's groundbreaking work on how race impacts the health of black Americans

U-M is the only public and non-coastal university on Forbes' top-10 list for billionaire production

ASA President Bonilla-Silva takes exception with Chief Justice Roberts' 'gobbledygook' jab

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 22, 2018, noon: Narayan Sastry

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