Joint programmes in paediatric cardiothoracic surgery: a survey and descriptive analysis

Joint programmes in paediatric cardiac surgery: an update and descriptive analysis

OBJECTIVE

Joint programmes are an alternative model that may aid in improving congenital cardiac surgery outcomes while avoiding the potential resource and accessibility challenges that could result from regionalisation. This study aims to characterise current joint programmes, identify factors that are associated with joint programme success and failure, and gauge attitudes within the profession regarding joint programmes as an alternative.

METHODS

A multiple choice survey with 23 standard questions for all programmes and additional 42 additional questions for each participant hospital in a joint programme was addressed to paediatric cardiac surgeons in the United States of America. Questions were designed to qualitatively and quantitatively characterise congenital cardiac surgery joint programmes.

RESULTS

Of the 34 unique congenital cardiac surgery programmes identified in this survey, 14 have participated in a joint programme and 50% of those joint programmes existed for more than 10 years. Most joint programmes (86%) participate or participated in a model where the hospital participants are engaged in a "mother-daughter" relationship in both perception and case volume distribution. In three out of four defunct joint programmes, there were case complexity limitations placed on partner institutions, but the now independent partner institutions operate with no limitation on complexity. Most (71%) hospital participants in a joint programme felt that the joint programme produced better outcomes than two separate programmes; however, among those who participate or have participated in a joint programme, only 18% felt that joint programmes were the optimal model for delivery of congenital cardiac surgical care.

Larger Centers Produce Better Outcomes in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: Regionalization is a Superior Model - The Con Prospective

Regionalization, in the context of congenital heart surgery, describes a process where smaller units close and patients are redistributed to larger centers. Proponents argue this will produce superior patient outcome based primarily on a volume-outcome effect. The potential disadvantage is that, as distance to center increases, access to service is compromised. In this article the volume-outcome effect is appraised and the effect of risk-stratification and threshold volumes explored. Access to service, and how certain congenital lesions and demographics might be disadvantaged, is reviewed. Alternative models are considered including collaborative programing and a standardizing approach of agreed parameters in personnel and infrastructure. Finally the influence of newer developments and quality metrics, including outcome databases, digital technologies and team-cognitive performance, needs to be factored in as the future unfolds. Ultimately, the design of a national congenital cardiac program should aspire to deliver care that is optimal, equitable and economic for the whole population. The solution lies in the distillation of competing variables cognizant of regional demographics and geography.

What evidence is there for a relationship between organisational features and patient outcomes in congenital heart disease services? A rapid review

Background

The purpose of this rapid evidence synthesis is to support the current NHS England service review on organisation of services for congenital heart disease (CHD). The evidence synthesis team was asked to examine the evidence on relationships between organisational features and patient outcomes in CHD services and, specifically, any relationship between (1) volume of cases and patient outcomes and (2) proximity of colocated services and patient outcomes. A systematic review published in 2009 had confirmed the existence of this relationship, but cautioned this was not sufficient to make recommendations on the size of units needed.

Objectives

To identify and synthesise the evidence on the relationship between organisational features and patient outcomes for adults and children with CHD.

Data sources

A systematic search of medical- and health-related databases [MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), The Cochrane Library and Web of Science] was undertaken for 2009–14 together with citation searching, reference list checking and stakeholder recommendations of evidence from 2003 to 2014.

Review methods

This was a rapid review and, therefore, the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria to retrieved records was undertaken by one reviewer, with 10% checked by a second reviewer. Five reviewers extracted data from included studies using a bespoke data extraction form which was subsequently used for evidence synthesis. No formal quality assessment was undertaken, but the usefulness of the evidence was assessed together with limitations identified by study authors.

Results

Thirty-nine papers were included in the review. No UK-based studies were identified and 36 out of 39 (92%) studies included only outcomes for paediatric patients. Thirty-two (82%) studies investigated the relationship between volume and mortality and seven (18%) investigated other service factors or outcomes. Ninety per cent were from the USA, 92% were multicentre studies and all were retrospective observational studies. Twenty-five studies (64%) included all CHD conditions and 14 (36%) included single conditions or procedures. Although the evidence does demonstrate a relationship between volume and outcome in the majority of studies, this relationship is not consistent. The relationship was stronger for single-complex conditions or procedures. A mixed picture emerged revealing a range of factors as well as volume that influence outcome, including condition severity, individual centre and surgeon effects and clinical advances over time. We found limited (seven studies) evidence about the impact of proximity and colocation of services on outcomes, and about volume on non-mortality outcomes.

Limitations

This was a rapid review that followed standard methods to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The main limitations of the included studies were the retrospective nature, reliance on routine data sets, completeness, selection bias and lack of data on key clinical and service-related processes.

Conclusions

This review identified a substantial number of studies reporting a positive relationship between volume and outcome, but the complexity of the evidence requires careful interpretation. The heterogeneity of findings from observational studies suggests that, while a relationship between volume and outcome exists, this is unlikely to be a simple, independent and directly causal relationship. The effect of volume on outcome relative to the effect of other as yet undetermined health system factors remains a complex and unresolved research question.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.