What underlies the observed hospital volume-outcome relationship?

Background Studies of the hospital volume-outcome relationship have highlighted that a greater volume activity improves patient outcomes. While this finding has been known for years, most studies to date have failed to delve into what underlies this relationship. Objective This study aimed to shed light on the basis of the hospital volume effect on patient outcomes by comparing treatment modalities for epithelial ovarian carcinoma patients. Data An exhaustive dataset of 355 patients in first-line treatment for Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma (EOC) in 2012 in three regions of France was used. These regions account for 15% of the metropolitan French population. Methods In the presence of endogeneity induced by a reverse causality between hospital volume and patient outcomes, we used an instrumental variable approach. Hospital volume of activity was instrumented by the distance from patients’ homes to their hospital, the population density, and the median net income of patient municipalities. Results Based on our parameter estimates, we found that the rate of complete tumor resection would increase by 15.5 percentage points with centralized care, and by 8.3 percentage points if treatment decisions were coordinated by high-volume centers compared to decentralized care. Conclusion As volume alone is an imperfect correlate of quality, policy-makers need to know what volume is a proxy for in order to devise volume-based policies.

Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks

The mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Delays in the recognition of CS and access to disease-modifying or hemodynamically stabilizing interventions likely contribute to poor outcomes. In parallel to successful initiatives in other disease states, such as acute ST-elevation MI and major trauma, institutions are increasingly advocating the use of a multidisciplinary ‘shock team’ approach to CS management. A volume–outcome relationship exists in CS, as with many other acute cardiovascular conditions, and the emergence of ‘shock hubs’ as experienced facilities with an interest in improving CS outcomes through a hub-and-spoke ‘shock network’ approach provides another opportunity to deliver improved CS care as widely and equitably as possible. This narrative review outlines improvements from a networked approach to care, discusses a team-based and protocolized approach to CS management, reviews the available evidence and discusses the potential benefits, challenges, and opportunities of such systems of care.

Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review

Introduction Many recent studies have investigated the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery. In some cases, the results have prompted the centralization of surgical activity. However, the methodologies and interpretations differ markedly from one study to another. The objective of the present scoping review was to describe the various features used to assess the volume-outcome relationship: the analyzed datasets, study population, outcome, covariates, confounders, volume modalities, and statistical methods. Methods and analysis The review was conducted according to a study protocol published in BMJ Open in 2020. Two authors (both of whom had helped to design the study protocol) screened publications independently according to the title, the abstract and then the full text. To ensure exhaustivity, all the papers included by each reviewer went through to the next step. Interpretation The 403 included studies covered 90 types of surgery, 61 types of outcome, and 72 covariates or potential confounders. 191 (47.5%) studies focussed on oncological surgery and 37.8% focussed visceral or digestive tract surgery. Overall, 86.6% of the studies found a statistically significant volume-outcome relationship, although the findings differed from one type of surgery to another. Furthermore, the types of outcome and the covariates were highly diverse. The majority of studies were performed in Western countries, and oncological and visceral surgical procedures were over-represented; this might limit the generalizability and comparability of the studies’ results.

Impact of Automated Best Practice Advisories on Provider Response to CYP2C19 Genotyping Results for Patients on Clopidogrel

Objective The study objective was to examine provider acceptance and genotyping responses to a best practice advisory (BPA) concerning clopidogrel and CYP2C19 intermediate and poor metabolizers within the context of a new pharmacogenomics program at a Midwestern health system . Other secondary objectives analyzed included appropriate BPA firing, the distribution of alleles in study population, indications for clopidogrel use, and impact of indication on therapy change. Methods: In this study, the progress of this program was assessed by quantifying how providers respond to BPAs generated in the electronic medical record (EMR), in the context of a single representative gene–drug–outcome relationship. Patient data was pulled via reports yielding patients with genotyped information in the EMR and cross-referenced with a report evaluating BPA firing occurrences. Results: By capturing antiplatelet therapy changes in response to CYP2C19 genotyping results, 37 patients were found that had 73 BPAs fire. Nine of those patients had alternative antiplatelet therapy ordered. Of these, 6 alternative antiplatelet therapies were ordered from the BPA. Conclusion: Providers utilized BPAs, but responded differently based on individual knowledge of genotypes and indications. Information obtained from this study can be used for provider education and as reference for future design and wording of BPAs.