» Articles » PMID: 28665483

Understanding the Relationship Between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare Star Rating, Surgical Case Volume, and Short-term Outcomes After Major Cancer Surgery

Overview
Journal Cancer
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Oncology
Date 2017 Jul 1
PMID 28665483
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery.

Methods: National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes.

Results: This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P < .001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay.

Conclusions: In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Citing Articles

Lack of associations between hospital rating and outcomes in patients with an acute coronary syndrome.

Aspberg S, Kahan T, Johansson F BMJ Open Qual. 2024; 13(1).

PMID: 38514089 PMC: 10961561. DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002475.


Do Quality Measures or Hospital Characteristics Predict Readmission Penalties for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty?.

Edington M, Stronach B, Barnes C, Mears S, Siegel E, Stambough J J Arthroplasty. 2024; 39(8S1):S27-S32.

PMID: 38401618 PMC: 11283986. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.02.042.


Impact of the Italian Healthcare Outcomes Program (PNE) on the Care Quality of the Poorest Performing Hospitals.

Fiore M, Bianconi A, Acuti Martellucci C, Rosso A, Zauli E, Flacco M Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(4).

PMID: 38391807 PMC: 10887701. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12040431.


Impact of Hospital Case Volume on Uterine Sarcoma Prognosis: SARCUT Study Subanalysis.

Gorostidi M, Yildirim Y, Macuks R, Mancari R, Achimas-Cadariu P, Ibanez E Ann Surg Oncol. 2023; 30(12):7645-7652.

PMID: 37460742 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13826-4.


Use of hospitals in the New York City Metropolitan Region, by race: how separate? How equal in resources and quality?.

Liu B, Ornstein K, Frydman J, Kelley A, Benn E, Siu A BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):1021.

PMID: 35948923 PMC: 9365444. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08414-3.


References
1.
Trinh Q, Bjartell A, Freedland S, Hollenbeck B, Hu J, Shariat S . A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64(5):786-98. PMC: 4109273. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.012. View

2.
Austin J, Jha A, Romano P, Singer S, Vogus T, Wachter R . National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; 34(3):423-30. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0201. View

3.
Bilimoria K, Barnard C . The New CMS Hospital Quality Star Ratings: The Stars Are Not Aligned. JAMA. 2016; 316(17):1761-1762. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.13679. View

4.
Herrel L, Norton E, Hawken S, Ye Z, Hollenbeck B, Miller D . Early impact of Medicare accountable care organizations on cancer surgery outcomes. Cancer. 2016; 122(17):2739-46. PMC: 4992435. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30111. View

5.
Finks J, Osborne N, Birkmeyer J . Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(22):2128-37. PMC: 3150488. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1010705. View