Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management (한국보건행정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Moderating Effect of Structural Complexity on the Relationship between Surgery Volume and in Hospital Mortality of Cancer Patients

일부 암 종의 수술량과 병원 내 사망률의 관계에서 구조적 복잡성의 조절효과

  • Youn, Kyungil (Department of Medical Humanities, Keimyung University School of Medicine)
  • 윤경일 (계명대학교 의과대학 의료인문학교실)
  • Received : 2014.10.21
  • Accepted : 2014.12.17
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The volume of surgery has been examined as a major source of variation in outcome after surgery. This study investigated the direct effect of surgery volume to in hospitals mortality and the moderating effect of structural complexity-the level of diversity and sophistication of technology a hospital applied in patient care-to the volume outcome relationship. Methods: Discharge summary data of 11,827 cancer patients who underwent surgery and were discharged during a month period in 2010 and 2011 were analyzed. The analytic model included the independent variables such as surgery volume of a hospital, structural complexity measured by the number of diagnosis a hospital examined, and their interaction term. This study used a hierarchical logistic regression model to test for an association between hospital complexity and mortality rates and to test for the moderating effect in the volume outcome relationship. Results: As structural complexity increased the probability of in-hospital mortality after cancer surgery reduced. The interaction term between surgery volume and structural complexity was also statistically significant. The interaction effect was the strongest among the patients group who had surgery in low volume hospitals. Conclusion: The structural complexity and volume of surgery should be considered simultaneously in studying volume outcome relationship and in developing policies that aim to reduce mortality after cancer surgery.

Keywords

References

  1. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346(15):1128-1137. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa012337
  2. Kim MG, Kwon SJ. Comparison of the outcomes for laparoscopic gastrectomy performed by the same surgeon between a low-volume hospital and a high-volume center. Surg Endosc 2014;28(5):1563-1570. DOI: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3352-2
  3. Damle RN, Macomber CW, Flahive JM, Davids JS, Sweeney WB, Sturrock PR, et al. Surgeon volume and elective resection for colon cancer: an analysis of outcomes and use of laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 2014;218(6):1223-1230. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.01.057
  4. Joseph B, Morton JM, Hernandez-Boussard T, Rubinfeld I, Faraj C, Velanovich V. Relationship between hospital volume, system clinical resources, and mortality in pancreatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 2009;208(4):520-527. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.01.019
  5. McPhee JT, Robinson WP 3rd, Eslami MH, Arous EJ, Messina LM, Schanzer A. Surgeon case volume, not institution case volume, is the primary determinant of in-hospital mortality after elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2011;53(3):591-599. e2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.09.063
  6. Hannan EL, Radzyner M, Rubin D, Dougherty J, Brennan MF. The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Surgery 2002;131(1):6-15. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/msy.2002.120238
  7. Chang CM, Yin WY, Wei CK, Lee CH, Lee CC. The combined effects of hospital and surgeon volume on short-term survival after hepatic resection in a population-based study. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e86444. DOI: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086444
  8. Barbieri CE, Lee B, Cookson MS, Bingham J, Clark PE, Smith JA Jr, et al. Association of procedure volume with radical cystectomy outcomes in a nationwide database. J Urol 2007;178(4 Pt 1):1418-1421. DOI: http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.156
  9. Konety BR, Dhawan V, Allareddy V, Joslyn SA. Impact of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality from radical cystectomy: data from the health care utilization project. J Urol 2005;173(5):1695-1700. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000154638.61621.03
  10. Gruen RL, Pitt V, Green S, Parkhill A, Campbell D, Jolley D. The effect of provider case volume on cancer mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59(3):192-211. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3322/caac.20018
  11. Richardson AJ, Pang TC, Johnston E, Hollands MJ, Lam VW, Pleass HC. The volume effect in liver surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2013;17(11):1984-1996. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11605-013-2314-2
  12. Avritscher EB, Cooksley CD, Rolston KV, Swint JM, Delclos GL, Franzini L, et al. Serious postoperative infections following resection of common solid tumors: outcomes, costs, and impact of hospital surgical volume. Support Care Cancer 2014;22(2):527-535. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00520-013-2006-1
  13. McCrum ML, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Jha AK, Gawande AA. Beyond volume: does hospital complexity matter?: an analysis of inpatient surgical mortality in the United States. Med Care 2014;52(3):235-242. DOI: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000077
  14. Walters BA, Bhuian SN. Complexity absorption and performance: a structural analysis of acute-care hospitals. J Manag 2004;30(1):97-121. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.005
  15. Lee KH. A study of the relationship between organizational characteristics and effectiveness in the central administrative agencies of Korea. Korean Stud Inf Serv Syst 2014;52(1):1-34.
  16. Lee KH, Kim KS. Organizational characteristics and performance of executive agency in Korea. Korean Assoc Policy Anal Eval 2005;15(2):127-163.
  17. Keller RT. Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Acad Manag J 2001;44(3):547-555. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069369
  18. Reagans R, Zuckerman E, McEvily B. How to make the team: social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin Sci Q 2004;49(1):101-133.
  19. Park OW. R&D project team diversity and team performance: investigating the moderating effect of innovative problem solving style and interdependence. J Korea Technol Innov Soc 2013;16(4):913-936.
  20. Joshi A, Roh H. The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic review. Acad Manag J 2009;52(3):599-627. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491
  21. Doh SR, Chang YS, Sohn CK, Shin ES, Kim EJ, Chun JH. Year 2011 patients survey. Seoul: Korea Institute of Health and Social Affair, Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2012.
  22. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40(5):373-383. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
  23. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986;51(6):1173-1182. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  24. Allison P. When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? [Internet]. Ardmore (PA): Statistical Horizons; 2012 [cited 2014 Sep 20]. Available from: http://www.statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity.
  25. Kim B, Yum S, Kim Y, Yun N, Shin S, You S. An analysis of factors relating to agricultural machinery farm-Work accidents using logistic regression. J Biosystems Eng 2014;39(3):151-157. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5307/jbe.2014.39.3.151
  26. Cha JS. The impact of problem-solving style and LMX on technical performance or organizational commitment: investigating the moderating effect of task uncertainty. J Hum Resour Manag 2012;9(4):99-117.
  27. Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Admin Sci Q 1999;44(4):741-763. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667054
  28. Department of Veterans Affair, Veterans Health Administration. Facility infrastructure requirements to perform standard, intermediate, or complex surgical procedures. Washington (DC): Veterans Health Administration; 2010.
  29. Begun JW, Tornabeni J, White KR. Opportunities for improving patient care through lateral integration: the clinical nurse leader. J Healthc Manag 2006;51(1):19-25. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-200601000-00005
  30. Allareddy V, Ward MM, Wehby GL, Konety BR. The connection between selective referrals for radical cystectomy and radical prostatectomy and volume-outcome effects: an instrumental variables analysis. Am J Med Qual 2012;27(5):434-440. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1062860611423728
  31. Kim SY, Park JH, Kim SG, Woo HK, Park JH, Kim Y, et al. Disparities in utilization of high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery: results of a Korean population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(11):2806-2815. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1133-x
  32. Yu W, Yun YK, Whang I, Choi GS. The surgeon's expertise-outcome relationship in gastric cancer surgery. Cancer Res Treat 2005;37(3):143-147. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4143/crt.2005.37.3.143
  33. Lee SI, Park YA, Sohn SK. A survey on the impact of operation volume on rectal cancer management. J Korean Med Sci 2007;22 Suppl:S86-S90. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2007.22.s.s86
  34. Kim CG, Kwak EK, Lee SI. The relationship between hospital volume and outcome of gastrointestinal cancer surgery in Korea. J Surg Oncol 2011;104(2):116-123. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.21946