| Title |
Impact of colorectal surgeon case volume on outcomes and applications to quality improvement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-018-3018-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Yi, John R. T. Monson, Cathy C. Stankiewicz, Sam Atallah, Neil J. Finkler |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the impact of surgeon case volumes on procedural, financial, and clinical outcomes in colorectal surgery and apply findings to improve hospital care quality. A retrospective review was performed using 2013-2014 administrative data from a large hospital system in Southeast U.S. region; univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to explore the impact of surgeon case volume on outcomes. One thousand one hundred ninety patients were included in this 2-year study. When compared with low-volume surgeons (LVS) (< 14 cases in 2 years), the high-volume surgeons (HVS) (> 34 cases) were estimated per case to have shorter cut-to-close time in the operation room by 79 min, ([95% CI 58 to 99]), lower total hospitalization cost by $4314, ([95% CI $2261 to $6367]), and shorter post-surgery and overall length of stay by 0.92 days, ([95% CI 0.50 to 1.35]) and 1.27 days ([95% CI 0.56 to 1.98]), respectively. The HVS also showed a higher tendency to choose a laparoscopic approach over an open approach, with an odds ratio of 3.16 ([95% CI 1.23 to 8.07]). When compared with medium-volume surgeons (MVS) (14-34 cases), the HVS were estimated per case to have shorter cut-to-close time in the operation room by 62 min ([95% CI 37 to 87]). Surgeon case volumes had no statistically significant impact on outcomes including in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, blood utilization, and surgical site infection (SSI). Surgeon case volume had positive impacts on procedural, financial, and clinical outcomes and this finding may be used to improve hospital's quality of care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 52% |
| Greece | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 8 | 38% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 70% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,684,282
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#24
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,751
of 332,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#3
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.