Rankings versus reality in pancreatic cancer surgery: a real‐world comparison. Issue 6 (7th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chau, Zeling; West, James K.; Zhou, Zheng; McDade, Theodore; Smith, Jillian K.; Ng, Sing‐Chau; Kent, Tara S.; Callery, Mark P.; Moser, A. James; Tseng, Jennifer F.
• Is Part Of: HPB. Volume 16:Issue 6(2014:Jun.)
• Page Start: 528
• Page End: 533
• Publication Date: 2013-11-07
• Subjects: Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Biliary tract -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Pancreas -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.362005
• DOI: 10.1111/hpb.12171
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1365-182X

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="hpb12171-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Patients are increasingly confronted with systems for rating hospitals. However, the correlations between publicized ratings and actual outcomes after pancreatectomy are unknown.</p> </sec> <sec id="hpb12171-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>The Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy Hospital Inpatient Discharge Database was queried to identify pancreatic cancer resections carried out during 2005–2009. Hospitals performing fewer than 10 pancreatic resections in the 5‐year period were excluded. Primary outcomes included mortality, complications, median length of stay (LoS) and a composite outcomes score (COS) combining primary outcomes. Ranks were determined and compared for: (i) volume, and (ii) ratings identified from consumer‐directed hospital ratings including the US News & World Report (USN), Consumer Reports, Healthgrades and Hospital Compare. An inter‐rater reliability analysis was performed and correlation coefficients (<italic>r</italic>) between outcomes and ratings, and between rating systems were calculated.</p> </sec> <sec id="hpb12171-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Eleven hospitals in which a total of 804 pancreatectomies were conducted were identified. Surgical volume correlated with overall outcome, but was not the strongest indicator. The highest correlation referred to that between USN rank and overall outcome. Mortality was most strongly correlated with Healthgrades ratings (<italic>r</italic> = 0.50); however, Healthgrades ratings demonstrated poorer correlations with all other outcomes. Consumer Reports ratings showed inverse correlations.</p> </sec> <sec id="hpb12171-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>The plethora of publicly available hospital ratings systems demonstrates heterogeneity. Volume remains a good but imperfect indicator of surgical outcomes. Further systematic investigation into which measures predict quality outcomes in pancreatic cancer surgery will benefit both patients and providers.</p> </sec> </abstract>