Download citation file:
The summary below is from the full report titled “The Effect of Clustering of Outcomes on the Association of Procedure Volume and Surgical Outcomes.” It is in the 21 October 2003 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 139, pages 658-665). The authors are K.S. Panageas, D. Schrag, E. Riedel, P.B. Bach, and C.B. Begg.
An increasing number of studies suggest that patients who have surgery at hospitals or by surgeons performing a high number of the particular procedure they need (high-volume providers) do better than patients who have surgery at hospitals or by surgeons doing fewer procedures (low-volume providers). These types of studies are known as “volume–outcome studies” because they look for associations between the volume of surgeries performed and patient outcomes. Volume–outcome studies are complicated, and there is disagreement about whether high volume is truly related to better outcomes. It is difficult to sort out whether outcomes differ because of provider experience or because patients of high-volume providers are just healthier or otherwise better off than patients of low-volume providers. Also, factors that have little to do with experience may account for the better outcomes seen with high-volume providers. Such factors could explain why not all high-volume providers have good outcomes. Another complicating factor is a statistical issue called “clustering.” Clustering refers to the fact that outcomes of one provider's patients will tend to be more like one another than like the outcomes of a different provider's patients. When this is the case, studies must include many more patients to be able to detect real differences in the care of high- and low-volume providers.
To see whether the results of volume–outcome studies change when statistical methods account for clustering.
The researchers reanalyzed data from 3 of their own previous studies, including 24,166 colon cancer surgeries, 10,737 prostate cancer surgeries, and 2603 rectal cancer surgeries.
The researches analyzed the data in the way most published volume–outcome studies have done and again using 2 different methods to adjust for clustering. They compared the results of each analysis.
When the researchers used methods that accounted for clustering, high volume was not as strongly or as consistently associated with better outcomes.
This study reanalyzed only data from 3 specific studies that all focused on cancer surgery. The results may not apply to other conditions.
While studies suggest that surgical patients fare best with providers (hospitals and surgeons) that perform a high volume of procedures, most have not accounted for the tendency of patients of one provider to have similar outcomes (clustering). When outcomes of individual patients are clustered, more patients are required to prove that providers' outcomes differ from one another. Planners considering regionalizing surgery and patients making decisions about where to go for surgery should remember that volume–outcome studies that have not accounted for clustering may exaggerate the statistical significance of differences in outcomes by provider.
Please read the other comments before posting. Contributors must reveal any conflict
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of The American
College of Physicians editorial staff. Please be sure your email address is
updated in your account, otherwise the American College of Physicians will not be
able to contact you about your comment.
Anyone can submit a comment any time after publication, but only those submitted within 4 weeks of an article’s publication will be considered for print publication. One month after publication, editors review all posted comments and select some for publication in the Letters section of the print version of Annals. (Not peer reviewed)
Authors: No more than 5
Text: Word Limit 400 (excludes references), 5 references, no figures or tables
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
(applies to the past 5 years and foreseeable future) Indicate any potential conflicts
of interest of each author below, including specific financial interests and relationships
and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript
(eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, speakers
bureau, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical
equipment, or patents filed, received, or pending). If all authors have none, check
"No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please
also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will
be posted with your response.
The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College
of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property
incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP.
The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and
only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities.
Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their
own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way
or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs
for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce
or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending
them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing
them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in
any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized
use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.
Learn more about subscription options