Dudley R A, Johansen K L, Brand R, Rennie D J, Milstein A
Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, and the Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 94118, USA.
JAMA. 2000 Mar 1;283(9):1159-66. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.9.1159.
Evidence exists that high-volume hospitals (HVHs) have lower mortality rates than low-volume hospitals (LVHs) for certain conditions. However, few employers, health plans, or government programs have attempted to increase the number of patients referred to HVHs.
To determine the difference in hospital mortality between HVHs and LVHs for conditions for which good quality data exist and to estimate how many deaths potentially would be avoided in California by referral to HVHs.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Literature in MEDLINE, Current Contents, and First-Search Social Abstracts databases from January 1, 1983, to December 31, 1998, was searched using the key words hospital, outcome, mortality, volume, risk, and quality. The highest-quality study assessing the mortality-volume relationship for each given condition was identified and used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital mortality for LVHs vs HVHs. These ORs were then applied to the 1997 California database of hospital discharges maintained by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to estimate potentially avoidable deaths.
Deaths that potentially could be avoided if patients with conditions for which a mortality-volume relationship had been treated at an HVH vs LVH.
The articles identified in the literature search were grouped by condition, and predetermined criteria were applied to choose the best article for each condition. Mortality was significantly lower at HVHs for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, lower extremity arterial bypass surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery, coronary angioplasty, heart transplantation, pediatric cardiac surgery, pancreatic cancer surgery, esophageal cancer surgery, cerebral aneurysm surgery, and treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). A total of 58,306 of 121,609 patients with these conditions were admitted to LVHs in California in 1997. After applying the calculated ORs to these patient populations, we estimated that 602 deaths (95% confidence interval, 304-830) at LVHs could be attributed to their low volume. Additional analyses were performed to take into account emergent admissions and distance traveled, but the impact of loss of continuity of care for some patients and reduction in the availability of specialists for patients remaining at LVHs could not be assessed.
Initiatives to facilitate referral of patients to HVHs have the potential to reduce overall hospital mortality in California for the conditions identified. Additional study is needed to determine the extent to which selective referral is feasible and to examine the potential consequences of such initiatives.
有证据表明,对于某些病症,高容量医院(HVHs)的死亡率低于低容量医院(LVHs)。然而,很少有雇主、健康计划或政府项目试图增加转诊至高容量医院的患者数量。
确定在有高质量数据的病症方面,高容量医院和低容量医院之间的医院死亡率差异,并估计在加利福尼亚州通过转诊至高容量医院可能避免多少死亡。
设计、设置和患者:检索了1983年1月1日至1998年12月31日期间MEDLINE、《现刊目次》和《社会科学文摘数据库》中的文献,使用了关键词“医院”“结果”“死亡率”“容量”“风险”和“质量”。确定了评估每种给定病症死亡率与容量关系的质量最高的研究,并用于计算低容量医院与高容量医院院内死亡率的比值比(ORs)。然后将这些比值比应用于加利福尼亚州全州卫生规划与发展办公室维护的1997年加利福尼亚医院出院数据库,以估计潜在可避免的死亡人数。
如果患有已确定死亡率与容量关系病症的患者在高容量医院而非低容量医院接受治疗,可能避免的死亡人数。
文献检索中确定的文章按病症分组,并应用预定标准为每种病症选择最佳文章。对于择期腹主动脉瘤修复术、颈动脉内膜切除术、下肢动脉搭桥手术、冠状动脉搭桥手术、冠状动脉血管成形术、心脏移植、小儿心脏手术、胰腺癌手术、食管癌手术、脑动脉瘤手术以及人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)/获得性免疫缺陷综合征(AIDS)的治疗,高容量医院的死亡率显著较低。1997年,加利福尼亚州共有121,609例患有这些病症的患者被收治到低容量医院。将计算出的比值比应用于这些患者群体后,我们估计低容量医院有602例死亡(95%置信区间,304 - 830)可归因于其低容量。进行了额外分析以考虑急诊入院和就诊距离,但无法评估一些患者失去连续护理以及留在低容量医院的患者专科医生可及性降低的影响。
促进患者转诊至高容量医院的举措有可能降低加利福尼亚州已确定病症的总体医院死亡率。需要进一步研究以确定选择性转诊的可行程度,并检查此类举措的潜在后果。