Surgical quality remains a priority for patients with cancer, payers and policymakers. Whether the risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) is a better metric than surgical volume to inform the regionalization of cancer surgery remains controversial. In particular, RSMR has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds. Novel alternative means that incorporate surgical volume, as well as evidence-based process measures, are needed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Pitocco, C. & Sexton, T. R. Measuring hospital performance using mortality rates: an alternative to the RAMR. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 7, 308–316 (2018).
Hollenbeck, B. K., Miller, D. C., Wei, J. T. & Montie, J. E. Regionalization of care: centralizing complex surgical procedures. Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 2, 461 (2005).
Baum, P. et al. Risk-adjusted mortality rates as a quality proxy outperform volume in surgical oncology – a new perspective on hospital centralization using national population-based data. J. Clin. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.01488 (2022).
Iezzoni, L. I. et al. Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the influence of the severity-adjustment method. Am. J. Public Health 86, 1379–1387 (1996).
Scott, I. Where does risk-adjusted mortality fit in a safety measurement program? PSNet, https://psnet.ahrq.gov/perspective/where-does-risk-adjusted-mortality-fit-safety-measurement-program (March 2015).
Thomas, J. W. & Hofer, T. P. Research evidence on the validity of risk-adjusted mortality rate as a measure of hospital quality of care. Med. Care Res. Rev. 55, 371–404 (1998).
Shine, D. Risk-adjusted mortality: problems and possibilities. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2012, 829465 (2012).
Bilimoria, K. Y. et al. Directing surgical quality improvement initiatives: comparison of perioperative mortality and long-term survival for cancer surgery. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 4626–4633 (2008).
Dimick, J. B., Welch, H. G. & Birkmeyer, J. D. Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 292, 847–851 (2004).
Dimick, J. B. & Welch, H. G. The zero mortality paradox in surgery. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 206, 13–16 (2008).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Related links
Leapfrog Group: https://www.leapfroggroup.org/
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bilimoria, K.Y., Pawlik, T.M. Risk-adjusting away volume as a quality metric for surgical oncology: a perspective worth re-visiting. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 19, 221–222 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00609-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00609-1
This article is cited by
-
Association of Textbook Outcome and Hospital Volume with Long-Term Survival Following Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: What Matters More?
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (2023)
-
Quality versus quantity in surgical oncology — what is the future?
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2022)
