 |
|
Hospital Volume and Quality
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 141 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: Dr Peterson and colleagues1 reported that quality scores for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were unrelated to the number of such procedures that hospitals performed. I have 3 concerns about their study.
First, hospitals with low volumes of CABG surgery may have less-stringent clinical indications, perhaps in an attempt to maintain a certain number of such procedures. Second, the risk-adjusted mortality rate in hospitals with 150 or fewer procedures per year was 28% greater than in hospitals with 450 or more procedures per year. If patients were able to make an informed choice, I believe many would opt for the hospital with the higher caseload. Third, larger health facilities enjoy economies of scale, enabling resources to be saved and used to improve health care coverage in other sectors.2 These potential advantages were not assessed by the authors.
Aldo Mariotto, MD
Veneto Region Section Italian Society for Quality Assurance
Padova, Italy
1. Peterson ED, Coombs LP, De Long ER, Haan CK, Ferguson TB. Procedural volume as a marker of quality for CABG surgery. JAMA. 2004;291:195-201.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. McGregor M, Pelletier G. Planning of specialized health facilities: size vs cost and effectiveness in heart surgery. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:179-181.
ISI
| PUBMED
Letters Section Editor: Stephen J. Lurie, MD, PhD, Senior Editor.
JAMA. 2004;291:2077.
RELATED ARTICLES
Hospital Volume and Quality—Reply
Eric D. Peterson
JAMA. 2004;291(17):2077.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Procedural Volume as a Marker of Quality for CABG Surgery
Eric D. Peterson, Laura P. Coombs, Elizabeth R. DeLong, Constance K. Haan, and T. Bruce Ferguson
JAMA. 2004;291(2):195-201.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
