Variation in Outcomes at Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence

Andrew M Ibrahim, Amir A Ghaferi, Jyothi R Thumma, Justin B Dimick, Andrew M Ibrahim, Amir A Ghaferi, Jyothi R Thumma, Justin B Dimick

Abstract

Importance: In the United States, reports about perioperative complications associated with bariatric surgery led to the establishment of accreditation criteria for bariatric centers of excellence and many bariatric centers obtaining accreditation. Currently, most bariatric procedures occur at these centers, but to what extent they uniformly provide high-quality care remains unknown.

Objective: To describe the variation in surgical outcomes across bariatric centers of excellence and the geographic availability of high-quality centers.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective review analyzed the claims data of 145 527 patients who underwent bariatric surgery at bariatric centers of excellence between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013. Data were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Database. This database included unique hospital identification numbers in 12 states (Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin), allowing comparisons among 165 centers of excellence located in those states. Participants were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Those included in the study cohort were patients with a primary diagnosis of morbid obesity and who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic gastric band placement, or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Excluded from the cohort were patients younger than 18 years or who had an abdominal malignant neoplasm. Data were analyzed July 1, 2016, through January 10, 2017.

Main outcomes and measures: Risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted serious complication rates within 30 days of the index operation were calculated for each center. Centers were stratified by geographic location and operative volume.

Results: In this analysis of claims data from 145 527 patients, wide variation in quality was found across 165 bariatric centers of excellence, both nationwide and statewide. At the national level, the risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted serious complication rates at each center varied 17-fold, ranging from 0.6% to 10.3%. At the state level, variation ranged from 2.1-fold (Wisconsin decile range, 1.5%-3.3%) to 9.5-fold (Nebraska decile range, 1.0%-10.3%). After dividing hospitals into quintiles of quality on the basis of their adjusted complication rates, 38 of 132 (28.8%) had a center in a higher quintile of quality located within the same hospital service area. Variation in rates of complications existed at centers with low volume (annual mean [SD] procedure volume, 156 [20] patients; complication range, 0.6%-6.4%; 9.8-fold variation), medium volume (annual mean [SD] procedure volume, 239 [27] patients; complication range, 0.6%-10.3%; 17.5-fold variation), and high volume (annual mean [SD] procedure volume, 448 [131] patients; complication range, 0.6%-4.9%; 7.5-fold variation).

Conclusions and relevance: Even among accredited bariatric surgery centers, wide variation exists in rates of postoperative serious complications across geographic location and operative volumes. Given that a large proportion of centers are geographically located near higher-performing centers, opportunities for improvement through regional collaboratives or selective referral should be considered.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Dimick has a financial interest in ArborMetrix, Inc, which had no role in the analysis herein. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Variation in Rates of Serious…
Figure 1.. Variation in Rates of Serious Complications Across Bariatric Centers of Excellence in 12 States
Risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted outcomes in 165 centers across 12 states. Data from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s State Inpatient Database.
Figure 2.. Variation in Rates of Serious…
Figure 2.. Variation in Rates of Serious Complications Across Low-Volume, Medium-Volume, and High-Volume Bariatric Centers of Excellence
Mean rate of complications is based on risk-adjusted data prior to reliability adjustment. Data are from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s State Inpatient Database, 2010-2013.

References

    1. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Estimate of bariatric surgery numbers, 2011-2015. . Accessed September 20, 2016.
    1. Flum DR, Salem L, Elrod JA, Dellinger EP, Cheadle A, Chan L. Early mortality among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA. 2005;294(15):1903-1908.
    1. Hollenbeak CS, Rogers AM, Barrus B, Wadiwala I, Cooney RN. Surgical volume impacts bariatric surgery mortality: a case for centers of excellence. Surgery. 2008;144(5):736-743.
    1. Pratt GM, McLees B, Pories WJ. The ASBS Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence program: a blueprint for quality improvement. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2006;2(5):497-503.
    1. Schirmer B, Jones DB. The American College of Surgeons Bariatric Surgery Center Network: establishing standards. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2007;92(8):21-27.
    1. Gebhart A, Young M, Phelan M, Nguyen NT. Impact of accreditation in bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(5):767-773.
    1. Dimick JB, Osborne NH, Nicholas L, Birkmeyer JD. Identifying high-quality bariatric surgery centers: hospital volume or risk-adjusted outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(6):702-706.
    1. Chhabra KR, Dimick JB. Hospital networks and value-based payment: fertile ground for regionalizing high-risk surgery. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1335-1336.
    1. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Overview of the State Inpatient Databases (SID). . Accessed January 11, 2016.
    1. Santry HP, Gillen DL, Lauderdale DS. Trends in bariatric surgical procedures. JAMA. 2005;294(15):1909-1917.
    1. Krell RW, Finks JF, English WJ, Dimick JB. Profiling hospitals on bariatric surgery quality: which outcomes are most reliable? J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(4):725-734.e3.
    1. Scally CP, Thumma JR, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Impact of surgical quality improvement on payments in Medicare patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):249-252.
    1. Osborne NH, Nicholas LH, Ryan AM, Thumma JR, Dimick JB. Association of hospital participation in a quality reporting program with surgical outcomes and expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2015;313(5):496-504.
    1. Livingston EH. Procedure incidence and in-hospital complication rates of bariatric surgery in the United States. Am J Surg. 2004;188(2):105-110.
    1. Ibrahim AM, Hughes TG, Thumma JR, Dimick JB. Association of hospital critical access status with surgical outcomes and expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2016;315(19):2095-2103.
    1. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. Research methods. In: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care Lebanon, NH: Trustees of Dartmouth College; 2017. . Accessed August 12, 2016.
    1. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8-27.
    1. Southern DA, Quan H, Ghali WA. Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. Med Care. 2004;42(4):355-360.
    1. Jones HE, Spiegelhalter DJ. The identification of “unusual” health-care providers from a hierarchical model. Am Stat. 2011;65(3):154-163.
    1. Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Birkmeyer JD. Ranking hospitals on surgical mortality: the importance of reliability adjustment. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(6, pt 1):1614-1629.
    1. Grenda TR, Krell RW, Dimick JB. Reliability of hospital cost profiles in inpatient surgery. Surgery. 2015;159(2):375-380.
    1. Elixhauser Comorbidity Software, version 3.7. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project website. . Accessed March 17, 2017.
    1. American Hospital Association AHA Annual Survey Database. . Accessed December 6, 2016.
    1. Saleh F, Doumouras AG, Gmora S, Anvari M, Hong D. Outcomes the Ontario Bariatric Network: a cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2016;4(3):E383-E389.
    1. Morton JM, Garg T, Nguyen N. Does hospital accreditation impact bariatric surgery safety? Ann Surg. 2014;260(3):504-508.
    1. O’Brien PE. Controversies in bariatric surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(6):611-618.
    1. Berger ER, Clements RH, Morton JM, et al. . The impact of different surgical techniques on outcomes in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies: the first report from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). Ann Surg. 2016;264(3):464-473.
    1. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. . Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1128-1137.
    1. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, et al. ; Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative . Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1434-1442.
    1. Sinha A, Jayaraman L, Punhani D, Chowbey P. Enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery in the severely obese, morbidly obese, super-morbidly obese and super-super morbidly obese using evidence-based clinical pathways: a comparative study. Obes Surg. 2017;27(3):560-568.
    1. Telem DA, Majid SF, Powers K, DeMaria E, Morton J, Jones DB. Assessing national provision of care: variability in bariatric clinical care pathways. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(2):281-284.
    1. Yeats M, Wedergren S, Fox N, Thompson JS. The use and modification of clinical pathways to achieve specific outcomes in bariatric surgery. Am Surg. 2005;71(2):152-154.
    1. Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program. Decreasing Readmissions Through Opportunities Provided (D.R.O.P) [video]. . Accessed August 12, 2016.
    1. Morton J. The first metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program quality initiative: decreasing readmissions through opportunities provided. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(3):377-378.
    1. Iezzoni LI, Daley J, Heeren T, et al. . Identifying complications of care using administrative data. Med Care. 1994;32(7):700-715.
    1. Weingart SN, Iezzoni LI, Davis RB, et al. . Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program. Med Care. 2000;38(8):796-806.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅