Cargando…

Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies?

BACKGROUND: Minimum volume standards (MVS) for hospitals and/or surgeons remain a subject of debate. Opponents of MVS emphasize the possible negative effects of centralization, such as an unwanted incentive to perform surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the introduction of MVS for radical cystec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nuijens, Siberyn T., van Hoogstraten, Lisa M.C., Meijer, Richard P., Kiemeney, Lambertus A., Aben, Katja K.H., Witjes, J. Alfred
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37187720
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.015
_version_ 1785040275464257536
author Nuijens, Siberyn T.
van Hoogstraten, Lisa M.C.
Meijer, Richard P.
Kiemeney, Lambertus A.
Aben, Katja K.H.
Witjes, J. Alfred
author_facet Nuijens, Siberyn T.
van Hoogstraten, Lisa M.C.
Meijer, Richard P.
Kiemeney, Lambertus A.
Aben, Katja K.H.
Witjes, J. Alfred
author_sort Nuijens, Siberyn T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Minimum volume standards (MVS) for hospitals and/or surgeons remain a subject of debate. Opponents of MVS emphasize the possible negative effects of centralization, such as an unwanted incentive to perform surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the introduction of MVS for radical cystectomy (RC) in the Netherlands resulted in more RCs outside guideline-recommended indications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All RCs performed for bladder cancer in the Netherlands between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2017 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. During this period, two MVS were sequentially implemented for RC. RCs in intermediate-volume hospitals (hospitals that approximated the MVS) were compared with RCs in high-volume hospitals (hospitals exceeding the MVS by ≥5 RCs/yr) in a period before and a period after implementation of each of the two MVS. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive analyses were performed to evaluate whether hospitals performed more RCs outside the recommended indication (cT2–4a N0 M0) and whether an increase in the number of RCs towards the end of the year could be observed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After MVS implementation, no clear shift towards disease stages outside the recommended indication for RC was observed in comparison to the period before the MVS. Results for high-volume and intermediate-volume hospitals were similar. In addition, no increase in RCs towards the end of the year was evident. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence indicating an unwanted incentive to perform more RCs as a result of MVS in the Netherlands. Our results further strengthen the case for MVS implementation. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated whether criteria for the minimum number of radical cystectomies (surgical removal of the bladder) that hospitals have to perform caused urologists to perform more of these operations than necessary in order to meet the minimum level. We found no evidence that minimum criteria led to such an unwanted incentive.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10175736
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101757362023-05-13 Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies? Nuijens, Siberyn T. van Hoogstraten, Lisa M.C. Meijer, Richard P. Kiemeney, Lambertus A. Aben, Katja K.H. Witjes, J. Alfred Eur Urol Open Sci Bladder Cancer BACKGROUND: Minimum volume standards (MVS) for hospitals and/or surgeons remain a subject of debate. Opponents of MVS emphasize the possible negative effects of centralization, such as an unwanted incentive to perform surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the introduction of MVS for radical cystectomy (RC) in the Netherlands resulted in more RCs outside guideline-recommended indications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All RCs performed for bladder cancer in the Netherlands between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2017 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. During this period, two MVS were sequentially implemented for RC. RCs in intermediate-volume hospitals (hospitals that approximated the MVS) were compared with RCs in high-volume hospitals (hospitals exceeding the MVS by ≥5 RCs/yr) in a period before and a period after implementation of each of the two MVS. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive analyses were performed to evaluate whether hospitals performed more RCs outside the recommended indication (cT2–4a N0 M0) and whether an increase in the number of RCs towards the end of the year could be observed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After MVS implementation, no clear shift towards disease stages outside the recommended indication for RC was observed in comparison to the period before the MVS. Results for high-volume and intermediate-volume hospitals were similar. In addition, no increase in RCs towards the end of the year was evident. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence indicating an unwanted incentive to perform more RCs as a result of MVS in the Netherlands. Our results further strengthen the case for MVS implementation. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated whether criteria for the minimum number of radical cystectomies (surgical removal of the bladder) that hospitals have to perform caused urologists to perform more of these operations than necessary in order to meet the minimum level. We found no evidence that minimum criteria led to such an unwanted incentive. Elsevier 2023-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10175736/ /pubmed/37187720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.015 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Bladder Cancer
Nuijens, Siberyn T.
van Hoogstraten, Lisa M.C.
Meijer, Richard P.
Kiemeney, Lambertus A.
Aben, Katja K.H.
Witjes, J. Alfred
Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies?
title Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies?
title_full Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies?
title_fullStr Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies?
title_full_unstemmed Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies?
title_short Minimum Volume Standards: An Incentive To Perform More Radical Cystectomies?
title_sort minimum volume standards: an incentive to perform more radical cystectomies?
topic Bladder Cancer
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175736/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37187720
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.015
work_keys_str_mv AT nuijenssiberynt minimumvolumestandardsanincentivetoperformmoreradicalcystectomies
AT vanhoogstratenlisamc minimumvolumestandardsanincentivetoperformmoreradicalcystectomies
AT meijerrichardp minimumvolumestandardsanincentivetoperformmoreradicalcystectomies
AT kiemeneylambertusa minimumvolumestandardsanincentivetoperformmoreradicalcystectomies
AT abenkatjakh minimumvolumestandardsanincentivetoperformmoreradicalcystectomies
AT witjesjalfred minimumvolumestandardsanincentivetoperformmoreradicalcystectomies