Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

PowerPoint® File

on

  • 574 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
574
Views on SlideShare
574
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • I have no disclosures
  • Classic triad of symptoms Pain unlikely to occur in the normal achalasia patient Psychological problems usually antedate esophageal dysfunction More tolerant to warm than cold, solid more than liquid especially early stage, in contradistinction to ca or strictures Large quantities of liquids help passage
  • Slide 2: The number of surgical resections for lung cancer continues to be on the rise, likely due to several factors, including the general rise in lung cancer cases, the heightened awareness and screening protocols, and extension of traditional indications. As surgical management of lung cancer has improved, the associated morbidity and mortality necessitates exploration of different measures to improve perioperative outcomes and optimize long-term results.
  • Slide 3: “much attention has been focused recently on outcomes after surgery, in part to define centers of excellence. Work has examined surgeon volume and hospital volume, correlating increased volumes with improved outcomes. Studies have shown this for pulmonary and esophageal resection, coronary artery bypass, carotid endarterectomy, and other complex cancer surgeries. However, to date, hospital characteristics associated with improved outcomes have been poorly defined.”
  • Slide 4: “teaching hospitals, which constitute a large portion of the tertiary care centers in this country, are generally where fellows, residents, medical students, nursing students and other physician extenders are trained. Usually teaching hospital status is a surrogate for higher levels of care and services. However, there is a public perception that teaching hospitals can be dangerous because of training issues. Concerns are frequently voiced by patients, and echoed in the lay press, regarding the fear of physicians in training “practicing” on them. These concerned patients often request that they be exempt from care by physicians in training. Prior published studies have shown that surgical outcomes for some procedures are equivocal at teaching hospitals, and that improved outcomes are due to increased hospital volume.”
  • Slide 5: In addition, Esophagectomies traditionally performed by General Surgeons as well as specialty-trained Thoracic Surgeons Debate persists over whether Thoracic Surgeons should preferentially perform esophagectomies, given their specific training. To date, few large, nationwide studies have examined this issue, however some have shown that this is independent of volume for some procedures.
  • Slide 5: “bearing this in mind, the impact of teaching hospitals on surgical outcomes, specifically after lung cancer surgery, has not been addressed, which catalyzed our interest in examining this as a factor in outcomes. We wanted to determine if there is an improved outcome at teaching institutions, and if this is related to hospital volume, or characteristics of the hospital environment. Therefore, WE HYPOTHESIZED that in-hospital mortality after lung cancer resection at Teaching Hospitals is improved, and is independent of hospital procedure volume.”
  • Slide 6: “To do this, we examined the LARGE retrospective Nationwide Inpt Sample database between 1998 and 2003. This database comprises approximately 1000 hospitals per year totaling 7million pt discharge records per year. Data available within the NIS include patient and hospital demographics, payer information, treating and concomitant diagnoses, in-patient procedures, in-patient mortality, length of stay, and total charges. This study was deemed by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board as exempt. We selected pts who had primary lung cancer and underwent either segmentectomy, lobectomy or pneumonectomy. Variables that we examined included pt age, gender, race, their comorbidities as identified by the Charlson index, and the annual hospital procedure volumes Once the cohort was established, the teaching status of the hospitals where pts were treated were determined.
  • Slide 6: “To do this, we examined the LARGE retrospective Nationwide Inpt Sample database between 1998 and 2003. This database comprises approximately 1000 hospitals per year totaling 7million pt discharge records per year. Data available within the NIS include patient and hospital demographics, payer information, treating and concomitant diagnoses, in-patient procedures, in-patient mortality, length of stay, and total charges. This study was deemed by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board as exempt. We selected pts who had primary lung cancer and underwent either segmentectomy, lobectomy or pneumonectomy. Variables that we examined included pt age, gender, race, their comorbidities as identified by the Charlson index, and the annual hospital procedure volumes Once the cohort was established, the teaching status of the hospitals where pts were treated were determined.
  • Slide 7: In the Nationwide Inpt Sample, teaching hospitals are defined as hospitals with at least 1 residency program of any type, Of note, these includes hospitals even without surgical residency programs, Hospitals which are members of the Council of Teaching Hospitals or Hospitals which have a maximum 4-to-1 ratio of beds to full-time residents.” For comparison, an academic hospital is defined as one with a university affiliation, and/or where the faculty is university based and engaged in research as part of their structured time. Since OUR INITIAL abstract includes ACADEMIC HOSPITALS, we were limited by the NIS database definition to TEACHING HOSPITALS.
  • Slide 8: “For our outcomes analysis, we used in-hospital death from any cause as the end result based on these discharge summaries We analyzed our statistics using multivariate logistic regression analysis, using a value of p less than or equal to 0.05 as significant.”
  • Slide 9: A total of 50,576 lung resections were identified in the NIS dataset between 1998 and 2003 that fit our search parameters. The lung resection volumes were distributed equally over the 6 year time period with approximately 17% of cases performed per year. When these were broken down by type of lung resection, nearly 75% of patients underwent lobectomy, 16% segmentectomy, and 10 % pneumonectomy When the hospital status was analyzed depicted here on the right, just over ½ of these procedures were performed at teaching hospitals.
  • Slide 10: Though more procedures were performed at teaching institutions in our study population , the percent breakdown of each type of anatomic resection was similar between teaching and non-teaching hospitals, and followed the same distribution overall for the study.
  • Slide 11: In looking at the patient demographics for both Teaching and non-teaching hospitals, median ages, gender and race distribution, which is not depicted here, were similar, with comparable Charlson indices of comorbidities and median hospital stay.
  • Slide 12: In this graph, we look at the UNADJUSTED mortality rates for each of the different surgical resection, and compared the results in teaching here in red with non-teaching hospitals here in yellow. The mortality rate for the entire cohort of patients was 3.82%. After stratifying by teaching status, the overall mortality rate for pulmonary resections was 3.63 % at teaching hospitals, significantly lower as compared to 4.0% at non-teaching hospitals, with a p value of 0.016. When further stratified by procedure type, the in-hospital mortality rate for patients undergoing a lobectomy was significantly lower at teaching hospitals, 2.94% vs. 3.62% at non-teaching hospitals, with a p value less than 0.001. There was no statistical difference for mortality between the two hospital types for segmentectomies or pneumonectomies.
  • Slide 13: In this table, the multivariate logistic regression analysis is presented comparing teaching and non-teaching hospitals, taking into account patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital volume. In comparing the two hospital types, the odds ratio was 0.81, which translates into an overall reduction in odds of death by 19% at teaching hospitals vs non-teaching hospitals, which was significant. Given findings of similar published papers in associated fields, we further examined our data, sub-grouping annual hospital volumes into these 4 categories. and even with the different volume groups, this difference between teaching and non-teaching hospitals persisted suggesting that mortality is INDEPENDENT of hospital volume.
  • Slide 12: This graph summarizes the unadjusted Mortalities of the different types of Teaching Hospitals …
  • Slide 14: “In summary, the results of our study demonstrate that there are significant improved perioperative outcomes for pulmonary resections at teaching hospitals, as evidenced by differences in mortality rate, and this translates into an overall 19% improvement in post-operative survival for lobectomies at teaching hospitals. These findings are independent of hospital volume. Why do we see this difference in outcomes between teaching and non-teaching hospitals?”
  • Slide 15: There have been many different methods used to evaluate patient care delivery and health care outcomes. We suspect that many of the factors contributing to the observed outcome are due to differences in the process of care that exist at teaching and non-teaching hospitals, which is the model most widely recognized to measure quality of healthcare. These may include the presence of subspeciality training, such as thoracic surgeons vs general surgeons, in-house resident/fellow care, and at our Institution now physician extenders such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants, dedicated Surgical intensive care units directed by intensive care specialists, the availability of dedicated ancillary services including thoracic-specific anesthesiology, physical therapy and respiratory therapy, an interdisciplinary team approach to the management of lung cancer patients, and clinical care pathway protocols for post-operative management
  • Slide 16: “We recognize that there are several limitations to this study. They include the retrospective database design and the associated constraints of the level of the data used for analysis , the definition of teaching hospital status in the NIS , the inability to account for surgical specialty training , the difficulty in examining other postoperative outcomes such as complications and causes of death, and the inability to further delineate what difference exist between teaching and non-teaching hospitals like the processes of care.
  • Slide 17: “In conclusion, the data from our study refute the fears of patients of seeking care at teaching hospitals, and suggest that post-operative survival is improved for patients undergoing lobectomy at teaching hospitals likely due to process of care and not hospital volume. Further research is needed to better elucidate the influence of hospital status and the process of care on post-operative outcomes for high-risk operations. On consideration of the limitations of our study, in conjunction with the finding of others, it is more likely that teaching hospital status is a surrogate marker for systems which contribute to improved perioperative survival. It is NOT our intention to say that these resections should be done at teaching institutions, but rather to further identify those factors contributing to the difference in outcomes between teaching and non-teaching hospitals, observed in this study. While the processes of care described this morning are certainly not specific to teaching hospitals alone, they would ultimately improve all thoracic surgery outcomes for such processes to be widely available, at teaching and non-teaching hospitals, large and small. Subsequently, information regarding these factors could be disseminated to improve patient care and outcomes nationally. Therefore, we propose that new standards in the process of care be considered for the benefit of patients undergoing resection for lung cancer independent of hospital volume and teaching status. Again, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank the Society for the privilege of presenting our paper, and am most flattered and honored to be amongst the J. Maxwell Chamberlain papers. Thank you.
  • Slide 17: “In conclusion, the data from our study refute the fears of patients of seeking care at teaching hospitals, and suggest that post-operative survival is improved for patients undergoing lobectomy at teaching hospitals likely due to process of care and not hospital volume. Further research is needed to better elucidate the influence of hospital status and the process of care on post-operative outcomes for high-risk operations. On consideration of the limitations of our study, in conjunction with the finding of others, it is more likely that teaching hospital status is a surrogate marker for systems which contribute to improved perioperative survival. It is NOT our intention to say that these resections should be done at teaching institutions, but rather to further identify those factors contributing to the difference in outcomes between teaching and non-teaching hospitals, observed in this study. While the processes of care described this morning are certainly not specific to teaching hospitals alone, they would ultimately improve all thoracic surgery outcomes for such processes to be widely available, at teaching and non-teaching hospitals, large and small. Subsequently, information regarding these factors could be disseminated to improve patient care and outcomes nationally. Therefore, we propose that new standards in the process of care be considered for the benefit of patients undergoing resection for lung cancer independent of hospital volume and teaching status. Again, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank the Society for the privilege of presenting our paper, and am most flattered and honored to be amongst the J. Maxwell Chamberlain papers. Thank you.
  • Slide 17: “In conclusion, the data from our study refute the fears of patients of seeking care at teaching hospitals, and suggest that post-operative survival is improved for patients undergoing lobectomy at teaching hospitals likely due to process of care and not hospital volume. Further research is needed to better elucidate the influence of hospital status and the process of care on post-operative outcomes for high-risk operations. On consideration of the limitations of our study, in conjunction with the finding of others, it is more likely that teaching hospital status is a surrogate marker for systems which contribute to improved perioperative survival. It is NOT our intention to say that these resections should be done at teaching institutions, but rather to further identify those factors contributing to the difference in outcomes between teaching and non-teaching hospitals, observed in this study. While the processes of care described this morning are certainly not specific to teaching hospitals alone, they would ultimately improve all thoracic surgery outcomes for such processes to be widely available, at teaching and non-teaching hospitals, large and small. Subsequently, information regarding these factors could be disseminated to improve patient care and outcomes nationally. Therefore, we propose that new standards in the process of care be considered for the benefit of patients undergoing resection for lung cancer independent of hospital volume and teaching status. Again, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank the Society for the privilege of presenting our paper, and am most flattered and honored to be amongst the J. Maxwell Chamberlain papers. Thank you.
  • Slide 17: “In conclusion, the data from our study refute the fears of patients of seeking care at teaching hospitals, and suggest that post-operative survival is improved for patients undergoing lobectomy at teaching hospitals likely due to process of care and not hospital volume. Further research is needed to better elucidate the influence of hospital status and the process of care on post-operative outcomes for high-risk operations. On consideration of the limitations of our study, in conjunction with the finding of others, it is more likely that teaching hospital status is a surrogate marker for systems which contribute to improved perioperative survival. It is NOT our intention to say that these resections should be done at teaching institutions, but rather to further identify those factors contributing to the difference in outcomes between teaching and non-teaching hospitals, observed in this study. While the processes of care described this morning are certainly not specific to teaching hospitals alone, they would ultimately improve all thoracic surgery outcomes for such processes to be widely available, at teaching and non-teaching hospitals, large and small. Subsequently, information regarding these factors could be disseminated to improve patient care and outcomes nationally. Therefore, we propose that new standards in the process of care be considered for the benefit of patients undergoing resection for lung cancer independent of hospital volume and teaching status. Again, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank the Society for the privilege of presenting our paper, and am most flattered and honored to be amongst the J. Maxwell Chamberlain papers. Thank you.
  • Slide 16 : I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues for their hard work and dedication to this project, as well as to my audience for their attention. On behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank the audience for their time and attention, and to thank my colleagues for their dedication to this project.
  • Slide 15: In comparing the same at general surgery training hospitals, without including volume, the odds of in-hospital death after esophagectomy for a patient undergoing treatment at a general surgery training hospital is 0.56, or a 44% reduction in risk of death as compared to non-general surgery training hospitals, and this is significant. When volume is added, the protective effect of general surgery training hospitals is diminished somewhat, but only minimally.
  • Slide 5: Therefore, we hypothesized the following: Post-Operative mortality after esophagectomy is reduced at teaching hospitals This reduction is independent of volume and Mortality outcomes for Thoracic Surgeons are improved over General Surgeons

PowerPoint® File PowerPoint® File Presentation Transcript

  • Stephen C. Yang, M.D. Chief of Thoracic Surgery The Arthur B. and Patricia B. Modell Professor in Thoracic Surgery The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions AHRQ 9/10/08 Healthcare Workforce and Regionalization of Services: Lung Cancer Resections
  • Disclosures
  •  
  • Overview
    • Incidence of lung cancer
    • Study background/methods
    • Result:
      • Teaching vs non-teaching
      • General surgery residency
      • Thoracic surgery residency
    • AHRQ Implications
  •  
  • The High Incidence of Lung Cancer * Jemal et al, CA 2006 RAM 01/07 Lung and Bronchus 92,700 13% Lung and Bronchus 81,770 12% Lung and Bronchus 90,330 31% Lung and Bronchus 73,130 36%
  • Prior Studies Examining Surgical Outcomes
    • Surgeon volume
    • Hospital volume
      • Pulmonary resection
      • Esophageal resection
      • Coronary artery bypass
      • Carotid endarterectomy
      • Other complex cancer surgery
    • Hospital characteristics associated with improved outcomes poorly defined
  • Origin of the Study
  • Teaching Hospitals
    • Teaching hospitals
      • Fellows, residents, medical and nursing students
      • Surrogate of higher levels of tertiary care and services
      • Public perception: “dangerous”
    • Published studies:
      • Benefit of teaching hospitals is due to increased volume
  • Thoracic vs. General Surgeons
    • Lung resections traditionally performed by general surgeons as well as specialty-trained thoracic surgeons
    • Debate persists over whether thoracic surgeons should preferentially perform lung (and esophageal) resections
    • Few large, nationwide studies have examined this issue
  • Benefit of Teaching Hospitals
    • Unclear whether perioperative outcomes are improved at teaching hospitals due to volume or environment
      • “ In-hospital mortality after lung cancer resection at teaching hospitals is low and improved at thoracic teaching programs, while independent of hospital procedure volume.”
    • Hypothesis:
  • Methods - 1
    • Study Design: Retrospective analysis using Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP/AHRQ)
      • 1998-2003
      • Combined with ACGME to identify general and thoracic surgery residency programs
      • Primary lung cancer
      • Segmentectomy, lobectomy, pneumonectomy
  • Definitions: Lung Cancer Operations
  • Methods - 2
    • Variables:
      • Age, gender, race
      • Charlson Index of comorbidities
      • Annual hospital procedure volumes
      • Teaching hospital status
  • Definitions
    • Teaching Hospitals (NIS):
    • - At least 1 residency program (not necessarily surgery)
    • - Member of Council of Teaching Hospitals
    • - Maximum 4:1 beds:residents
    • Academic Hospitals:
    • - University affiliation
    • - Faculty: university-based, engage in research
  • Outcome Analysis
    • Outcome:
      • In-hospital death from any cause as end result based on discharge summary (not usual 30-day mortality)
    • Analyzed Statistics:
      • Multivariate logistic regression analysis
  • Surgical and Hospital Demographics Overall Resections Seg. 8,143 Lobectomy 37,882 Pneum. 4,901 9.7% 74.9% 16.1% 50,576 3215 Overall Hospital Status Teaching 28,101 Non-Teaching 22,780 55.2% 44.8%
  • Resection Demographics Teaching Non-Teaching Hospitals 1095 (34.1%) 2115 (65.9%) Total Resections 28,101 22,780 Segmentectomy 4,383 (15.7%) 3,753 (16.5%) Lobectomy 20,740 (73.8%) 17,110 (75.1%) Pneumonectomy 2,978 (10.6%) 1,917 (8.4%)
  • Patient Demographics Teaching Non-Teaching Median Age 66 years 67 years Female 46.8% 45.6% Median Charlson Index 3 3 Median Hospital Stay 7 7
  • Unadjusted Mortality : Teaching vs. Non-Teaching Hospitals p=0.016 * p<0.001 * Teaching Non-Teaching p<0.05 *
  • Multivariate Analysis of Lobectomies at Teaching vs. Non-Teaching * Adjusted for Age, Gender, Race, Comorbidities, Volume Odds Ratio* 95% CI P-value Overall 0.81 0.69 - 0.96 0.012 Sub-Groups: Volume < 5 0.83 0.70 - 0.97 0.023 Volume < 10 0.83 0.70 - 0.98 0.026 Volume > 10 0.83 0.70 - 0.98 0.026 Volume > 20 0.84 0.71 - 0.98 0.031 19% Reduction in Mortality
  • 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Teaching Non-Teach Gen Surg Non-Gen Surg Thor Surg Non-Thor Surg In-Hospital Mortality Rate Unadjusted Overall Mortality : Teaching vs. Non-Teaching Hospitals 20.2% 27.3% 27.5%
  • Summary
      • Statistically significant difference in mortality rate for lobectomies at teaching vs. non-teaching hospitals (2.94% vs. 3.62%)
      • 19% improvement in post-operative survival for lobectomy at teaching hospital
      • (95% CI: 0.69 - 0.96)
      • These findings are independent of hospital volume
  • Teaching Hospitals: Process of Care
      • Subspecialty trained surgeons
        • - Thoracic vs. General surgeons
      • In-house resident / fellow care
      • Dedicated SICU directed by intensive care specialists
      • Thoracic anesthesiology
      • Physical / Respiratory therapists
      • Interdisciplinary team management of lung cancer patients
      • Pathway protocols for post-operative care
  • Study Limitations
    • Retrospective database design
    • Definition of teaching hospital in NIS
    • Inability to account for differences in surgical specialty training
    • Unable to examine other post-op outcomes
    • Inability to further delineate what differences exist between teaching & non-teaching hospitals
  • Conclusions
    • These data suggest that post-operative mortality is improved for patients undergoing lobectomy at teaching hospitals.
    • More research is needed to define the influence of hospital status and the process of care on post-operative outcomes for high-risk operations.
  • Conclusions
    • Our data refute the fears of patients seeking surgical care at teaching hospitals
    • Information regarding these processes of care could be disseminated to improve patient care and outcomes nationally.
    • Critical steps in the process of care should be identified for the benefit of patients undergoing resection for lung cancer independent of hospital volume and teaching status.
  • Application of NIS/HCUP/AHRQ
    • Limitations: patient level data (staging, specific complications, etc)
    • Applicability of NIS increased by combining with other datasets (ACGME in this study)
    • Specialty Datasets: Society of Thoracic Surgeons database in adult cardiac, general thoracic and pediatric cardiac surgery
  • Policy Implications
    • If data is taken at face value, AHRQ could propose national clinical practice guidelines (i.e. beta-blockers for MI) to have complex procedures performed at teaching hospitals
    • If conclusions are extrapolated, and the “processes of care” are felt to be essential for improved outcomes, policy makers could make these mandatory services for these procedures
  • Thank You
    • Robert A. Meguid, MD, MPH
    • Benjamin S. Brooke, MD
    • David Chang, PhD, MPH, MBA
    • J. Timothy Sherwood, MD
    • Malcolm V. Brock, MD
  •  
  • 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Overall Seg. Lobe. Pneumon. Overall Seg. Lobe. Pneumon. Overall Seg. Lobe. Pneumon. Adjusted Odds Ratio of In-Hospital Death after Lung Resection Odds of In-Hospital Death Teaching vs Non-Teaching Gen Surg vs Non-Gen Surg Thor Surg vs Non-Thor Surg
  • Hypotheses:
    • Post-Operative mortality after lung resection is reduced at teaching hospitals
    • This reduction is independent of volume
    • Mortality outcomes for Thoracic Surgeons are improved over General Surgeons
  • Unadjusted Mortality : General Surgery Teaching vs. Non-Gen Surg Teaching Hospitals In Hospital Mortality Rate p<0.05 p<0.05 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Overall Seg . Lobe . Pneumon . Gen Surg Teaching Non-Gen Surg Teaching
  • Unadjusted Mortality : Thoracic Surgery Teaching vs. Non-Thor Surg Teaching Hospitals In Hospital Mortality Rate p<0.05 p<0.05