A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE LITERATURE RELATING HOSPITAL OR SURGEON VOLUME TO HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR 3 UROLOGICAL CANCER PROCEDURES
- 1 December 2004
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Urology
- Vol. 172 (6 Part 1) , 2145-2152
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000140257.05714.45
Abstract
Purpose: We performed a systematic review and critique of the literature of the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in patients undergoing radical surgery for cancer of the bladder, kidney or prostate. Materials and Methods: Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes. Results: All included studies were performed in North America. A total of 12 studies were found that related hospital volume to outcomes. For radical prostatectomy and cystectomy all 8 included studies showed improvement in at least 1 outcome measure with increasing volume and never deterioration. For nephrectomy the 4 included studies produced conflicting results. Four studies were found that related surgeon volume to outcomes. All radical prostatectomy and cystectomy studies showed that some outcomes were better with higher surgeon volume and never deterioration. We did not find any studies of the effect of surgeon volume on outcomes after nephrectomy. The 3 studies of the combined effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcomes after radical prostatectomy or cystectomy suggest that high volume hospitals have better outcomes, in part because of the effect of surgeon volume and vice versa. Conclusions: Outcomes after radical prostatectomy and cystectomy are on average likely to be better if these procedures are performed by and at high volume providers. For radical nephrectomy the evidence is unclear. The impact of volume based policies (increasing volume to improve outcomes) depends on the extent to which “practice makes perfect” explains the observed results. Further studies should explicitly address selective referral and confounding as alternative explanations. Longitudinal studies should be performed to evaluate the impact of volume based policiesKeywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Surgeon Volume and Operative Mortality in the United StatesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2003
- Threshold Volumes Associated With Higher Survival in Health CareMedical Care, 2003
- Is Volume Related to Outcome in Health Care? A Systematic Review and Methodologic Critique of the LiteratureAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2002
- 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
- Is cancer care best at high-volume providers?Current Oncology Reports, 2001
- Hospital and Physician Volume or Specialization and Outcomes in Cancer Treatment: Importance in Quality of Cancer CareJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2000
- Population-Based Study of Relationships Between Hospital Volume of Prostatectomies, Patient Outcomes, and Length of Hospital StayJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1999
- Variation in outcome of surgical proceduresBritish Journal of Surgery, 1994
- Does Practice Make Perfect?Medical Care, 1984