Association of Quality and Technology With Patient Mobility for Colorectal Cancer Surgery

被引:12
|
作者
Aggarwal, Ajay [1 ,2 ]
Han, Lu [1 ]
Boyle, Jemma [1 ,2 ]
Lewis, Daniel [1 ]
Kuyruba, Angela [2 ]
Braun, Michael [3 ,4 ]
Walker, Kate [1 ,2 ]
Fearnhead, Nicola [5 ]
Sullivan, Richard [6 ,7 ]
Van Der Meulen, Jan [1 ]
机构
[1] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Dept Hlth Serv Res & Policy, 15-17 Tavistock Pl, London WC1H 9SH, England
[2] Royal Coll Surgeons England, Clin Effectiveness Unit, London, England
[3] Christie NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Oncol, Manchester, England
[4] Univ Manchester, Sch Med Sci, Manchester, England
[5] Cambridge Univ Hosp, Dept Colorectal Surg, Cambridge, England
[6] Kings Coll London, Inst Canc Policy, London, England
[7] Guys & St Thomas NHS Trust, Dept Oncol, London, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
RECTAL-CANCER; HOSPITAL COMPETITION; OUTCOMES; MARKET; VOLUME;
D O I
10.1001/jamasurg.2022.5461
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
IMPORTANCE Many health care systems publish hospital-level quality measures as a driver of hospital performance and to support patient choice, but it is not known if patients with cancer respond to them. OBJECTIVE To investigate hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This choice modeling study used national administrative hospital data. Patients with colon and rectal cancer treated in all 163 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals delivering colorectal cancer surgery between April 2016 and March 2019 were included. The extent to which patients chose to bypass their nearest surgery center was investigated, and conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the association of additional travel time, hospital quality measures, and patient characteristics with treatment location. EXPOSURES Additional travel time in minutes, hospital characteristics, and patient characteristics: age, sex, cancer T stage, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and rural or urban residence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Treatment location. RESULTS Overall, 44 299 patients were included in the final cohort (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [11.6] years; 18 829 [42.5%] female). A total of 8550 of 31258 patients with colon cancer (27.4%) and 3933 of 13 041 patients with rectal cancer (30.2%) bypassed their nearest surgical center. Travel time was strongly associated with treatment location. The association was less strong for younger, more affluent patients and those from rural areas. For rectal cancer, patients were more likely to travel to a hospital designated as a specialist colorectal cancer surgery center (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87; P = .004) and to a hospital performing robotic surgery for rectal cancer (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.86; P = .007). Patients were less likely to travel to hospitals deemed to have inadequate care by the national quality regulator (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97; P = .03). Patients were not more likely to travel to hospitals with better 2-year bowel cancer mortality outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Patients appear responsive to hospital characteristics that reflect overall hospital quality and the availability of robotic surgery but not to specific disease-related outcome measures. Policies allowing patients to choose where they have colorectal cancer surgery may not result in better outcomes but could drive inequities in the health care system.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Anastomotic leakage as an outcome measure for quality of colorectal cancer surgery
    Snijders, H. S.
    Henneman, D.
    van Leersum, N. L.
    ten Berge, M.
    Fiocco, M.
    Karsten, T. M.
    Havenga, K.
    Wiggers, T.
    Dekker, J. W.
    Tollenaar, R. A. E. M.
    Wouters, M. W. J. M.
    BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2013, 22 (09) : 759 - 767
  • [12] The Impact of Patient's Pain and Fatigue on the Discharge Decision After Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
    Jung, Won Beom
    ANNALS OF COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2019, 35 (04) : 158 - 159
  • [13] Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: quality of life, body image, cosmesis, and functional results
    Scarpa, Marco
    Erroi, Francesca
    Ruffolo, Cesare
    Mollica, Eleonora
    Polese, Lino
    Pozza, Giulia
    Norberto, Lorenzo
    D'Amico, Davide F.
    Angriman, Imerio
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2009, 23 (03): : 577 - 582
  • [14] Surgeon and hospital-related risk factors in colorectal cancer surgery
    Brannstrom, F.
    Jestin, P.
    Matthiessen, P.
    Gunnarsson, U.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2011, 13 (12) : 1370 - 1376
  • [15] Quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery and care according to patient-, tumor-, and hospital-related factors
    Mathoulin-Pelissier, Simone
    Becouarn, Yves
    Belleannee, Genevieve
    Pinon, Elodie
    Jaffre, Anne
    Coureau, Gaelle
    Auby, Dominique
    Renaud-Salis, Jean-Louis
    Rullier, Eric
    BMC CANCER, 2012, 12
  • [16] Establishing quality in colorectal surgery
    Almoudaris, A. M.
    Clark, S.
    Vincent, C.
    Faiz, O.
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2011, 13 (09) : 961 - 973
  • [17] Quality assessment of surgery for colorectal cancer: Where do we stand?
    Morarasu, Stefan
    Livadaru, Cristian
    Dimofte, Gabriel-Mihail
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2024, 16 (04):
  • [18] Underutilization of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
    Wexner, Steven D.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 18 (06) : 1518 - 1519
  • [19] Guideline for Optimization of Colorectal Cancer Surgery and Pathology
    Smith, Andrew J.
    Driman, David K.
    Spithoff, Karen
    Hunter, Amber
    McLeod, Robin S.
    Simunovic, Marko
    Langer, Bernard
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 101 (01) : 5 - 12
  • [20] Can patients with rectosigmoid cancer wait for surgery? The association of time to surgery with patient outcomes
    Quereshy, Humzah A. A.
    Chesney, Tyler R. R.
    Guidolin, Keegan
    Draginov, Arman
    Chadi, Sami
    Quereshy, Fayez A. A.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 65 (06) : E817 - E824