Volume and Outcome — It Is Time to Move Ahead
- 11 April 2002
- journal article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 346 (15) , 1161-1164
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200204113461512
Abstract
The volume–outcome hypothesis has created a policymaker's dilemma. In 1979, Luft and colleagues1 reported in the Journal that the number of procedures performed at a hospital (hospital volume) and mortality rates for many surgical procedures were inversely related. Since then, this relation has been documented many times,2 fueling a persistent debate about whether health care should be regionalized and certain sorts of complex, elective care restricted to high-volume medical centers.35 Two studies reported in this issue of the Journal will undoubtedly fuel this controversy. In the first, Birkmeyer and colleagues6 used Medicare claims data from 1994 through 1999 to . . .Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United StatesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Variations in Morbidity after Radical ProstatectomyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Invited commentary: Quality of care and the volume-outcome relationship—What's next for surgery?Surgery, 2002
- The Effect of Organized Systems of Trauma Care on Motor Vehicle Crash MortalityJAMA, 2000
- Public Release of Performance DataPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,2000
- The Public Release of Performance DataJAMA, 2000
- High-Risk Surgery—Follow the CrowdPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,2000
- Will Quality Report Cards Help Consumers?Health Affairs, 1997
- Should Surgery Be Regionalized?Surgical Clinics of North America, 1982
- Should Operations Be Regionalized?New England Journal of Medicine, 1979