Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature

Ethan A. Halm, Clara Lee, Mark R. Chassin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1207 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review the methodologic rigor of the research on volume and outcomes and to summarize the magnitude and significance of the association between them. Data Sources: The authors searched MEDLINE from January 1980 to December 2000 for English-language, population-based studies examining the independent relationship between hospital or physician volume and clinical outcomes. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Study Selection: Of 272 studies reviewed, 135 met inclusion criteria and covered 27 procedures and clinical conditions. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently reviewed each article, using a standard form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results. Data Synthesis: The methodologic rigor of the primary studies varied. Few studies used clinical data for risk adjustment or examined effects of hospital and physician volume simultaneously. Overall, 71% of all studies of hospital volume and 69% of studies of physician volume reported statistically significant associations between higher volume and better outcomes. The strongest associations were found for AIDS treatment and for surgery on pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pediatric cardiac problems (a median of 3.3 to 13 excess deaths per 100 cases were attributed to low volume). Although statistically significant, the volume-outcome relationship for coronary artery bypass surgery, coronary angioplasty, carotid endarterectomy, other cancer surgery, and orthopedic procedures was of much smaller magnitude. Hospital volume-outcome studies that performed risk adjustment by using clinical data were less likely to report significant associations than were studies that adjusted for risk by using administrative data. Conclusions: High volume is associated with better outcomes across a wide range of procedures and conditions, but the magnitude of the association varies greatly. The clinical and policy significance of these findings is complicated by the methodologic shortcomings of many studies. Differences in case mix and processes of care between high- and low-volume providers may explain part of the observed relationship between volume and outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)511-520
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume137
Issue number6
StatePublished - Sep 17 2002

Fingerprint

Delivery of Health Care
Risk Adjustment
Physicians
Orthopedic Procedures
Carotid Endarterectomy
Information Storage and Retrieval
Diagnosis-Related Groups
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Bibliography
Esophageal Neoplasms
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Angioplasty
Coronary Artery Bypass
MEDLINE
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Research Design
Language
Research Personnel
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Pediatrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. / Halm, Ethan A.; Lee, Clara; Chassin, Mark R.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 137, No. 6, 17.09.2002, p. 511-520.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0d50686bbd6d4de1a7551755d138018f,
title = "Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature",
abstract = "Purpose: To systematically review the methodologic rigor of the research on volume and outcomes and to summarize the magnitude and significance of the association between them. Data Sources: The authors searched MEDLINE from January 1980 to December 2000 for English-language, population-based studies examining the independent relationship between hospital or physician volume and clinical outcomes. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Study Selection: Of 272 studies reviewed, 135 met inclusion criteria and covered 27 procedures and clinical conditions. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently reviewed each article, using a standard form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results. Data Synthesis: The methodologic rigor of the primary studies varied. Few studies used clinical data for risk adjustment or examined effects of hospital and physician volume simultaneously. Overall, 71{\%} of all studies of hospital volume and 69{\%} of studies of physician volume reported statistically significant associations between higher volume and better outcomes. The strongest associations were found for AIDS treatment and for surgery on pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pediatric cardiac problems (a median of 3.3 to 13 excess deaths per 100 cases were attributed to low volume). Although statistically significant, the volume-outcome relationship for coronary artery bypass surgery, coronary angioplasty, carotid endarterectomy, other cancer surgery, and orthopedic procedures was of much smaller magnitude. Hospital volume-outcome studies that performed risk adjustment by using clinical data were less likely to report significant associations than were studies that adjusted for risk by using administrative data. Conclusions: High volume is associated with better outcomes across a wide range of procedures and conditions, but the magnitude of the association varies greatly. The clinical and policy significance of these findings is complicated by the methodologic shortcomings of many studies. Differences in case mix and processes of care between high- and low-volume providers may explain part of the observed relationship between volume and outcome.",
author = "Halm, {Ethan A.} and Clara Lee and Chassin, {Mark R.}",
year = "2002",
month = "9",
day = "17",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "137",
pages = "511--520",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature

AU - Halm, Ethan A.

AU - Lee, Clara

AU - Chassin, Mark R.

PY - 2002/9/17

Y1 - 2002/9/17

N2 - Purpose: To systematically review the methodologic rigor of the research on volume and outcomes and to summarize the magnitude and significance of the association between them. Data Sources: The authors searched MEDLINE from January 1980 to December 2000 for English-language, population-based studies examining the independent relationship between hospital or physician volume and clinical outcomes. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Study Selection: Of 272 studies reviewed, 135 met inclusion criteria and covered 27 procedures and clinical conditions. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently reviewed each article, using a standard form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results. Data Synthesis: The methodologic rigor of the primary studies varied. Few studies used clinical data for risk adjustment or examined effects of hospital and physician volume simultaneously. Overall, 71% of all studies of hospital volume and 69% of studies of physician volume reported statistically significant associations between higher volume and better outcomes. The strongest associations were found for AIDS treatment and for surgery on pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pediatric cardiac problems (a median of 3.3 to 13 excess deaths per 100 cases were attributed to low volume). Although statistically significant, the volume-outcome relationship for coronary artery bypass surgery, coronary angioplasty, carotid endarterectomy, other cancer surgery, and orthopedic procedures was of much smaller magnitude. Hospital volume-outcome studies that performed risk adjustment by using clinical data were less likely to report significant associations than were studies that adjusted for risk by using administrative data. Conclusions: High volume is associated with better outcomes across a wide range of procedures and conditions, but the magnitude of the association varies greatly. The clinical and policy significance of these findings is complicated by the methodologic shortcomings of many studies. Differences in case mix and processes of care between high- and low-volume providers may explain part of the observed relationship between volume and outcome.

AB - Purpose: To systematically review the methodologic rigor of the research on volume and outcomes and to summarize the magnitude and significance of the association between them. Data Sources: The authors searched MEDLINE from January 1980 to December 2000 for English-language, population-based studies examining the independent relationship between hospital or physician volume and clinical outcomes. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Study Selection: Of 272 studies reviewed, 135 met inclusion criteria and covered 27 procedures and clinical conditions. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently reviewed each article, using a standard form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results. Data Synthesis: The methodologic rigor of the primary studies varied. Few studies used clinical data for risk adjustment or examined effects of hospital and physician volume simultaneously. Overall, 71% of all studies of hospital volume and 69% of studies of physician volume reported statistically significant associations between higher volume and better outcomes. The strongest associations were found for AIDS treatment and for surgery on pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pediatric cardiac problems (a median of 3.3 to 13 excess deaths per 100 cases were attributed to low volume). Although statistically significant, the volume-outcome relationship for coronary artery bypass surgery, coronary angioplasty, carotid endarterectomy, other cancer surgery, and orthopedic procedures was of much smaller magnitude. Hospital volume-outcome studies that performed risk adjustment by using clinical data were less likely to report significant associations than were studies that adjusted for risk by using administrative data. Conclusions: High volume is associated with better outcomes across a wide range of procedures and conditions, but the magnitude of the association varies greatly. The clinical and policy significance of these findings is complicated by the methodologic shortcomings of many studies. Differences in case mix and processes of care between high- and low-volume providers may explain part of the observed relationship between volume and outcome.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037125874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037125874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 137

SP - 511

EP - 520

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 6

ER -