The impact of hospital volume on patient safety indicators following post-mastectomy breast reconstruction in the US
- 42 Downloads
Despite the growing spotlight on value-based care and patient safety, little is known about the influence of patient-, reconstruction-, and facility-level factors on safety events following breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to characterize postoperative complications in light of hospital-level risk factors.
Using the National Inpatient Sample, all patients who underwent free flap and prosthetic breast reconstruction from 2012 to 2014 were identified. Predictor variables included patient demographic and clinical characteristics, type and timing of reconstruction, annual hospital reconstructive volume, hospital bed size, hospital setting (rural vs. urban), and length of stay. Patient safety indicators (PSIs) were based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s designation of preventable hospital complications: venous thromboembolism, bleeding, wound complications, pneumonia, and sepsis. Logistic models were used to analyze outcomes.
The sample included 103,301 women, of which 27,695 (26.8%) underwent free flap reconstruction. 3.6% of patients experienced ≥ 1 PSI, most commonly wound PSI (4.9% and 2.5% for free flap and prosthetic reconstruction, respectively). Significant predictors of PSIs included rural setting (p < 0.01) and Elixhauser score ≥ 4 (p < 0.01) for the free flap group, and delayed reconstruction (p < 0.01) for the prosthetic group. Annual reconstructive facility volume was not associated with increased odds of PSIs in either prosthetic or free flap reconstruction (p > 0.05).
PSIs were associated with rural hospitals and greater comorbidities for patients undergoing reconstruction with free flaps. Annual reconstructive facility volume was not associated with adverse inpatient outcomes with either method of reconstruction.
KeywordsBreast reconstruction Patient safety Patient safety indicator Hospital volume Procedural volume
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Dr. Momeni is a consultant for Allergan, AxoGen, Sientra, and Stryker. No payment or compensation was received for this study. Dr. Sheckter, Dr. Rochlin, and Ms. Kiwanuka, and Dr. Curtin have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
No consent was indicated given de-identified national database (Nationwide Inpatient Sample). Data were accessed by Dr. Sheckter who holds a data use agreement with the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Product.
- 5.Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project Methods Series–Nationwide Inpatient Sample Redesign Final Report #2014-14 [Internet]. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/2014-04.pdf
- 7.Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) NIS Notes [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 11]. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/vars/hosp_bedsize/nisnote.jsp
- 9.AHRQ—Quality Indicators [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jan 31]. https://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/modules/psi_overview.aspx
- 11.Zhou X (ed) (2014) Applied missing data analysis in the health sciences. Wiley, Hoboken, p 230Google Scholar
- 23.Hospitals Move to Limit Low-Volume Surgeries [Internet]. US News & World Report. [cited 2019 Feb 10]. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/19/hospitals-move-to-limit-low-volume-surgeries
- 33.Missing Data Methods of the National Inpatient Sample and the State Inpatient Databases. Report # 2015-01. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 11]. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/2015_01.pdf