Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T15:02:45.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Joint programmes in paediatric cardiothoracic surgery: a survey and descriptive analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

William M. DeCampli*
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, Florida, United States of America Division of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children, Orlando, Florida, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: Dr W. M. DeCampli, MD, PhD, Division of Pediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery, Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children, 50 East Miller Street, Orlando, Florida 32813, United States of America. Tel: +321 843 3294; Fax: +407 539 3068; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Background

Joint programmes, as opposed to regionalisation of paediatric cardiac care, may improve outcomes while preserving accessibility. We determined the prevalence and nature of joint programmes.

Methods

We sent an online survey to 125 paediatric cardiac surgeons in the United States in November, 2009 querying the past or present existence of a joint programme, its mission, structure, function, and perceived success.

Results

A total of 65 surgeon responses from 65 institutions met the criteria for inclusion. Of the 65 institutions, 22 currently or previously conducted a joint programme. Compared with primary institutions, partner institutions were less often children's hospitals (p = 0.0004), had fewer paediatric beds (p = 0.005), and performed fewer cardiac cases (p = 0.03). Approximately 47% of partner hospitals performed fewer than 50 cases per year. The median distance range between hospitals was 41–60 miles, ranging from 5 to 1000 miles. Approximately 54% of partner hospitals had no surgeon working primarily on-site, and 31% of the programmes conducted joint conferences. Approximately 67% of the programmes limited the complexity of cases at the partner hospital, and 83% of the programmes had formal contracts between hospitals. Of the six programmes whose main mission was to increase referrals to the primary hospital, three were felt to have failed. Of the nine programmes whose mission was to increase regional quality, eight were felt to be successful.

Conclusion

Joint programmes in paediatric cardiac surgery are common but are heterogeneous in structure and function. Programmes whose mission is to improve the quality of regional care seem more likely to succeed. Joint programmes may be a practical alternative to regionalisation to achieve better outcomes.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Halm, EA, Lee, C, Chassin, MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 511520.Google Scholar
2.Chang, RK, Klitzner, TS. Can regionalization decrease the number of deaths for children who undergo cardiac surgery? A theoretical analysis. Pediatrics 2002; 109: 173181.Google Scholar
3.Hannan, EL, Racz, M, Kavey, RE, Quaegebeur, JM, Williams, R. Pediatric cardiac surgery: the effect of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 963969.Google Scholar
4.Jenkins, KJ, Newburger, JW, Lock, JE, Davis, RB, Coffman, GA, Iezzoni, LI. In-hospital mortality for surgical repair of congenital heart defects: preliminary observations of variation by hospital caseload. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 323330.Google Scholar
5.Sollano, JA, Gelijns, AC, Moskowitz, AJ, et al. Volume-outcome relationships in cardiovascular operations: New York state, 1990–1995. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 117: 419428; discussion 428–430.Google Scholar
6.Bazzani, LG, Marcin, JP. Case volume and mortality in pediatric cardiac surgery patients in California, 1998–2003. Circulation 2007; 115: 26522659.Google Scholar
7.Welke, KF, Diggs, BS, Karamlou, T, Ungerleider, RM. The relationship between hospital surgical case volumes and mortality rates in pediatric cardiac surgery: a national sample, 1988–2005. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 86: 889896; discussion 889–96.Google Scholar
8.Welke, KF, O'Brien, SM, Peterson, ED, Ungerleider, RM, Jacobs, ML, Jacobs, JP. The complex relationship between pediatric cardiac surgical case volumes and mortality rates in a national clinical database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 11331140.Google Scholar
9.Bernet, PM, Moises, J, Valdmanis, VG. Social efficiency of hospital care delivery: frontier analysis from the consumer's perspective. Med Care Res Rev 2011; 68 (1 Suppl): 36S54S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Livingston, EH, Burchell, I. Reduced access to care resulting from centers of excellence initiatives in bariatric surgery. Arch Surg 2010; 145: 993997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Stitzenberg, KB, Sigurdson, ER, Egleston, BL, Starkey, RB, Meropol, NJ. Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 46714678.Google Scholar
12.Mayer, ML, Beil, HA, von Allmen, D. Distance to care and relative supply among pediatric surgical subspecialties. J Pediatr Surg 2009; 44: 483495.Google Scholar
13.Lorch, SA, Silber, JH, Even-Shoshan, O, Millman, A. Use of prolonged travel to improve pediatric risk-adjustment models. Health Serv Res 2009; 44: 519541.Google Scholar
14.Chang, RK, Klitzner, TS. Resources, use, and regionalization of pediatric cardiac services. Curr Opin Cardiol 2003; 18: 98101.Google Scholar
15.Allen, SW, Gauvreau, K, Bloom, BT, Jenkins, KJ. Evidence-based referral results in significantly reduced mortality after congenital heart surgery. Pediatrics 2003; 112: 2428.Google Scholar
16.Schiller, WR, Anderson, BF. Two major hospitals can share level 1 status in a rural community setting. J Trauma 2004; 57: 5156.Google Scholar
17.Wagner, R, Muller, G. The Power of 2. Gallup Press, New York, 2009.Google Scholar