A National Comparison of Operative Outcomes of New and Experienced Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether outcomes achieved by new surgeons are attributable to inexperience or to differences in the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity.

BACKGROUND

Although prior studies suggest that new surgeon outcomes are worse than those of experienced surgeons, factors that underlie these phenomena are poorly understood.

METHODS

A nationwide observational tapered matching study of outcomes of Medicare patients treated by new and experienced surgeons in 1221 US hospitals (2009-2013). The primary outcome studied is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

In total, 694,165 patients treated by 8503 experienced surgeons were matched to 68,036 patients treated by 2119 new surgeons working in the same hospitals. New surgeons' patients were older (25.8% aged ≥85 vs 16.3%,P<0.0001) with more emergency admissions (53.9% vs 25.8%,P<0.0001) than experienced surgeons' patients. Patients of new surgeons had a significantly higher baseline 30-day mortality rate compared with patients of experienced surgeons (6.2% vs 4.5%,P<0.0001;OR 1.42 (1.33, 1.52)). The difference remained significant after matching the types of operations performed (6.2% vs 5.1%, P<0.0001; OR 1.24 (1.16, 1.32)) and after further matching on a combination of operation type and emergency admission status (6.2% vs 5.6%, P=0.0007; OR 1.12 (1.05, 1.19)). After matching on operation type, emergency admission status, and patient complexity, the difference between new and experienced surgeons' patients' 30-day mortality became indistinguishable (6.2% vs 5.9%,P=0.2391;OR 1.06 (0.97, 1.16)).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare beneficiaries, the majority of the differences in outcomes between new and experienced surgeons are related to the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity rather than new surgeon inexperience.

Evaluating the Costs and Outcomes of Hospital Nursing Resources: a Matched Cohort Study of Patients with Common Medical Conditions

BACKGROUND

Nursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources.

DESIGN

Matched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals.

PATIENTS

A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status.

MAIN MEASURES

Better (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs.

KEY RESULTS

Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

Impact of Dependent Coverage Provision of the Affordable Care Act on Insurance Continuity for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer

PURPOSE

The 2010 Dependent Coverage Provision (DCP) of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed enrollees to remain on their parents' health insurance until 26 years of age. We compared rates of insurance disenrollment among patients with cancer who were DCP-eligible at age 19 to those who were not eligible at age 19.

METHODS

Using OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal, real-world, de-identified administrative claims for commercial enrollees, we examined patients born between 1982 and 1993 and diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2015. In the recent cohort, patients who turned 19 in 2010-2012 (DCP-eligible to stay on parents' insurance) were matched to patients who turned 19 in 2007-2009 (not DCP-eligible when turning 19). In an earlier control cohort, patients who turned 19 between 2004 and 2006 (not DCP-eligible) were matched to patients who turned 19 between 2001 and 2003 (not DCP-eligible). Patients were matched on cancer type, diagnosis date, demographics, and treatment characteristics. The time to loss of coverage was estimated using Cox models. Difference-in-difference between the recent and earlier cohorts was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2,829 patients who turned 19 years of age in 2010-2012 were matched to patients who turned 19 in 2007-2009. Median time to disenrollment was 26 months for younger patients versus 22 months for older patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.90; P = .001). In 8,978 patients who turned 19 between 2001 and 2006, median time to disenrollment was 20 months among both younger and older patients (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03; P = .59). The difference between the recent cohort and the earlier control cohort was a 15% greater reduction in coverage loss (P < .0001), favoring those turning 19 after the DCP went into effect.

CONCLUSION

In the vulnerable population of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors, the ACA may have lowered the insurance dropout rate.

Valuing hospital investments in nursing: multistate matched-cohort study of surgical patients

BACKGROUND

There are known clinical benefits associated with investments in nursing. Less is known about their value.

AIMS

To compare surgical patient outcomes and costs in hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources and to determine if value differs across these hospitals for patients with different mortality risks.

METHODS

Retrospective matched-cohort design of patient outcomes at hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources, defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses and nurse work environments. The sample included 62 715 pairs of surgical patients in 76 better nursing resourced hospitals and 230 worse nursing resourced hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Patients were exactly matched on principal procedures and their hospital's size category, teaching and technology status, and were closely matched on comorbidities and other risk factors.

RESULTS

Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had lower 30-day mortality: 2.7% vs 3.1% (p<0.001), lower failure-to-rescue: 5.4% vs 6.2% (p<0.001), lower readmissions: 12.6% vs 13.5% (p<0.001), shorter lengths of stay: 4.70 days vs 4.76 days (p<0.001), more intensive care unit admissions: 17.2% vs 15.4% (p<0.001) and marginally higher nurse-adjusted costs (which account for the costs of better nursing resources): $20 096 vs $19 358 (p<0.001), as compared with patients in worse nursing resourced hospitals. The nurse-adjusted cost associated with a 1% improvement in mortality at better nursing hospitals was $2035. Patients with the highest mortality risk realised the greatest value from nursing resources.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals with better nursing resources provided better clinical outcomes for surgical patients at a small additional cost. Generally, the sicker the patient, the greater the value at better nursing resourced hospitals.

Patient Safety Outcomes under Flexible and Standard Resident Duty-Hour Rules

BACKGROUND

Concern persists that extended shifts in medical residency programs may adversely affect patient safety.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized noninferiority trial in 63 internal-medicine residency programs during the 2015-2016 academic year. Programs underwent randomization to a group with standard duty hours, as adopted by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in July 2011, or to a group with more flexible duty-hour rules that did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts. The primary outcome for each program was the change in unadjusted 30-day mortality from the pretrial year to the trial year, as ascertained from Medicare claims. We hypothesized that the change in 30-day mortality in the flexible programs would not be worse than the change in the standard programs (difference-in-difference analysis) by more than 1 percentage point (noninferiority margin). Secondary outcomes were changes in five other patient safety measures and risk-adjusted outcomes for all measures.

RESULTS

The change in 30-day mortality (primary outcome) among the patients in the flexible programs (12.5% in the trial year vs. 12.6% in the pretrial year) was noninferior to that in the standard programs (12.2% in the trial year vs. 12.7% in the pretrial year). The test for noninferiority was significant (P = 0.03), with an estimate of the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (0.93%) for a between-group difference in the change in mortality that was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 percentage point. Differences in changes between the flexible programs and the standard programs in the unadjusted rate of readmission at 7 days, patient safety indicators, and Medicare payments were also below 1 percentage point; the noninferiority criterion was not met for 30-day readmissions or prolonged length of hospital stay. Risk-adjusted measures generally showed similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Allowing program directors flexibility in adjusting duty-hour schedules for trainees did not adversely affect 30-day mortality or several other measured outcomes of patient safety. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; iCOMPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02274818.).

Disparities in Breast Cancer Survival by Socioeconomic Status Despite Medicare and Medicaid Insurance

Policy Points Patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience poorer survival rates after diagnosis of breast cancer, even when enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the difference in survival is due to more advanced cancer on presentation and the general poor health of lower SES patients, while only a very small fraction of the SES disparity is due to differences in cancer treatment. Even when comparing only low- versus not-low-SES whites (without confounding by race) the survival disparity between disparate white SES populations is very large and is associated with lower use of preventive care, despite having insurance.

CONTEXT

Disparities in breast cancer survival by socioeconomic status (SES) exist despite the "safety net" programs Medicare and Medicaid. What is less clear is the extent to which SES disparities affect various racial and ethnic groups and whether causes differ across populations.

METHODS

We conducted a tapered matching study comparing 1,890 low-SES (LSES) non-Hispanic white, 1,824 black, and 723 Hispanic white women to 60,307 not-low-SES (NLSES) non-Hispanic white women, all in Medicare and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1992 and 2010 in 17 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions. LSES Medicare patients were Medicaid dual-eligible and resided in neighborhoods with both high poverty and low education. NLSES Medicare patients had none of these factors.

MEASUREMENTS

5-year and median survival.

FINDINGS

LSES non-Hispanic white patients were diagnosed with more stage IV disease (6.6% vs 3.6%; p < 0.0001), larger tumors (24.6 mm vs 20.2 mm; p < 0.0001), and more chronic diseases such as diabetes (37.8% vs 19.0%; p < 0.0001) than NLSES non-Hispanic white patients. Disparity in 5-year survival (NLSES - LSES) was 13.7% (p < 0.0001) when matched for age, year, and SEER site (a 42-month difference in median survival). Additionally, matching 55 presentation factors, including stage, reduced the disparity to 4.9% (p = 0.0012), but further matching on treatments yielded little further change in disparity: 4.6% (p = 0.0014). Survival disparities among LSES blacks and Hispanics, also versus NLSES whites, were significantly associated with presentation factors, though black patients also displayed disparities related to initial treatment. Before being diagnosed, all LSES populations used significantly less preventive care services than matched NLSES controls.

CONCLUSIONS

In Medicare, SES disparities in breast cancer survival were large (even among non-Hispanic whites) and predominantly related to differences of presentation characteristics at diagnosis rather than differences in treatment. Preventive care was less frequent in LSES patients, which may help explain disparities at presentation.

Using Appendicitis to Improve Estimates of Childhood Medicaid Participation Rates

OBJECTIVE

Administrative data are often used to estimate state Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program duration of enrollment and insurance continuity, but they are generally not used to estimate participation (the fraction of eligible children enrolled) because administrative data do not include reasons for disenrollment and cannot observe eligible never-enrolled children, causing estimates of eligible unenrolled to be inaccurate. Analysts are therefore forced to either utilize survey information that is not generally linkable to administrative claims or rely on duration and continuity measures derived from administrative data and forgo estimating claims-based participation. We introduce appendectomy-based participation (ABP) to estimate statewide participation rates using claims by taking advantage of a natural experiment around statewide appendicitis admissions to improve the accuracy of participation rate estimates.

METHODS

We used Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) for 2008-2010; and the American Community Survey for 2008-2010 from 43 states to calculate ABP, continuity ratio, duration, and participation based on the American Community Survey (ACS).

RESULTS

In the validation study, median participation rate using ABP was 86% versus 87% for ACS-based participation estimates using logical edits and 84% without logical edits. Correlations between ABP and ACS with or without logical edits was 0.86 (P < .0001). Using regression analysis, ABP alone was a significant predictor of ACS (P < .0001) with or without logical edits, and adding duration and/or the continuity ratio did not significantly improve the model.

CONCLUSION

Using the ABP rate derived from administrative claims (MAX) is a valid method to estimate statewide public insurance participation rates in children.