Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References

As part of its remit to investigate the adequacy of Bristol Royal Infirmary's surgical services for children with heart disease, the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry commissioned a range of statistical work to investigate outcomes of paediatric cardiac surgery and compare Bristol with other centres.¹ This statistical analysis identified a high mortality at Bristol that is highly unlikely to be due to chance, particularly for open heart operations conducted between 1991 and March 1995.² That Bristol was one of the smaller centres performing paediatric cardiac surgery leads to two further questions: whether the outcome of such surgery is associated with the volume of cases; and, if so, to what extent the high mortality in Bristol can be explained by the hospital's lower volume of cases.

	Materials and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References

Sources of data
The cardiac surgical register comprises voluntary returns made by surgeons to their professional society and uses diagnostic categories. The hospital episode statistics for 1991-5 comprise four years of administrative data entered by clinical coders. Data are available from 12 centres in England. In each source, operations are primarily treated as either "open" or "closed" and are further subdivided into 13 "procedure groups."² For this analysis children were grouped by age at time of operation (less than 1 year old and 1 year or older).

The role of Bristol Royal Infirmary
This study was generated by the high mortality in children who underwent heart operations at Bristol Royal Infirmary, a centre with a low volume of cases, and hence it is likely that Bristol would be very influential in any analysis. It is inappropriate to test hypotheses on the same data as those that generated the hypothesis. Thus the primary analysis excluded results from Bristol. This also provided an unbiased assessment of the extent to which any excess mortality in Bristol can be explained by its lower volume of cases.

Statistical analysis
Studies of volume and outcome present a number of potential statistical problems. Firstly, results should ideally be adjusted for type of cases (case mix), to avoid some centres seeming to perform poorly because they carry out more complex surgery. Each of the 13 procedure groups was individually analysed, although there are acknowledged difficulties in the coding at this level of detaila particular difficulty in the cardiac surgical register is distinguishing switch operations for transposition of the great arteries from Mustard or Senning repairs. The primary analysis was therefore based on pooled open operations and was stratified for procedure group. This stratification estimated a common association within procedure groups and should be more robust with respect to errors in allocation to procedure groups.

Secondly, low and high volume should be defined before the analysis. Recently, authors in the United States were accused of deliberately selecting volume thresholds after the analysis of survival rates in liver transplantation to justify their institution remaining the sole provider of the operation in the state. ^{3 4} Selecting thresholds to maximise significance renders the claimed level of significance uninterpretable, and information is lost by grouping institutions into categories.⁵ No threshold was chosen in the present analysis, and volume was defined as the number of patients treated in each age group. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of a specific change in volume; this odds ratio was assumed to be constant across the volume range unless there was strong evidence of a threshold. A degree of stratification for risk was achieved by including procedure group as a factor in the logistic regression. The odds ratio can be transformed to the relative change (r) in odds of death (expressed as a percentage) per additional patient per yearfor example, an odds ratio of 0.98 per additional patient per year corresponds to a value of r of 100×(10.98)=2%. This would mean that for each additional operation of the type carried out, the estimated risk for each patient (expressed as odds of death) is reduced by 2%.

Thirdly, general conclusions should not be made from the very good or bad performance of just one or two centres. ^{6 7} Plots show whether individual centres are having undue influence. Finally, it should be recognised that the unit of analysis is the hospital, rather than the individual patient, and so estimated standard errors should be adjusted appropriately.

The relative change in risk for all open operations was estimated in each age group, with and without the inclusion of the data from Bristol and with and without stratification for case mix, for both data sources for the period 1991-5. This analysis was repeated for all closed operations in each age group, with and without Bristol. When there was an association between risk and volume, the impact on absolute mortality and the extent to which the association explains the apparent excess mortality in Bristol was estimated. Reports detailing the statistical analysis carried out for the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry, including a fuller version of this paper, may be found on the inquiry's website.⁸

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References

In all open operations in children aged less than 1 year there was a significant association in both data sources between mortality and volume (table 1). Both data sources showed a consistent relation (excluding data from Bristol), despite disagreement in the data.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 1.   Relation between mortality and volume of cases in corrective surgery for transposition of the great arteries in children aged <1 year, 1991-5 (hospital episode statistics show switch operations; the cardiac surgical register includes other types). r=estimated change (excluding data from Bristol) in odds of death for each extra case per year; p values are for a two sided test of the hypothesis of no association. Solid line shows the relation fitted by logistic regression, dashed lines show 95% confidence intervals

Stratifying the data by procedure group increased the estimated association between mortality and volume (table 1). This result might be expected if larger centres carried out a greater proportion of more complex operations. Again, inclusion of the data from Bristol strengthened this finding. The procedure groups that contributed most to the association are corrective operations for transposition of the great arteries ("switch" operations in the health episode statistics) and repair of atrioventricular septal defect (figs 1 and 2). Much of the relation shown in the data from the cardiac surgical register in figure 1 comes from one large centre.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 2.   Relation between mortality and volume of cases in surgery for repair of atrioventricular septal defect in children aged <1 year, 1991-5. r=estimated change (excluding data from Bristol) in odds of death for each extra case per year; p values are for a two sided test of the hypothesis of no association. Solid line shows the relation fitted by logistic regression, dashed lines show 95% confidence intervals

For closed operations, no consistent pattern occurred in either data source (table 1). Including the data from Bristol had negligible influence on the relation in closed operations.

When both sets of data shown in table 1 were used, r is around -0.4% without adjustment for operation mix and around -0.6% with adjustment. A hospital carrying out 120 open operations per year on children less than 1 year old in 1991-5 would be expected to have a mortality that is 25% lower (11.3% v 15.0%) than that in a hospital carrying out only 40 such operations. If the hospitals had exactly the same mix of operations, this relative reduction is 34% (9.9% v 15.0%) (for details see full version on BMJ's website). Table 2 shows that only an estimated 12% (hospital episode statistics) or 17% (cardiac surgical register) of the excess mortality at Bristol can be explained by Bristol's low volume of cases.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References

Mortality in children aged less than 1 year old who underwent open heart surgery in 1991-5 is significantly related to the volume of cases, even when data from Bristol are excluded. This effect was consistent across both data sources and became more pronounced when the data were stratified according to the mix of operations. This finding is not due to the disproportionate influence of just one or two centres. The data sources were consistent in showing that only a small proportion of the excess mortality at Bristol Royal Infirmary can be attributed to its having a low volume.

Caution is needed in interpreting these findings. The data sources are not of high quality, they have different coding schemes, and they share inadequacies in reporting of data. The conclusions in terms of policy that can be drawn from the study are unclear. For example, for the data from the hospital episode statistics, it is tempting to recommend a minimum volume of around 50 operations per year, or one a week: mortality in children aged <1 year in centres with a lower volume was 14.7% (not including Bristol) or 16.7% (including Bristol), whereas the mortality in centres with a higher volume was 10%. Dudley et al take the bold step of using such data to predict the number of "potentially avoidable deaths"based on the assumption that patients treated at "low" volume centres could have been treated at "high" volume centres, resulting in lower mortalitybut this seems to be a quite unwarranted extrapolation.⁹

It is possible that concentrating certain types of operation in fewer centres will lead directly to benefits in outcomefor example, through increased opportunities for surgical learning. However, Posnett warns that such "economies of scale" cannot be guaranteed.¹⁰ Rather than indicating causality, an association between volume and better outcome might be due to a common underlying factor, such as a hospital's longer history, better associated services (such as intensive care), its ability to attract and retain skilled staff, or its ability to attract more patients because of its reputation. None of these factors would necessarily be obtained by, say, merging the caseloads of two centres. It is also important not to extrapolate beyond the available data; further increases in the case volume in larger centres may even lead to poorer outcomes, if communication in the hospital were to start to decline. Finally, it is possible that the concordance between centres might have increased since 1995, because experience with operations such as the arterial switch has been gained.

	Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Ruth Chadwick, Paul Aylin, Gordon Murray, Stephen Evans, and Nicky Best for advice and provision of data. All views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry.

	Footnotes

Funding: Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry.

Competing interests: None declared.

The full version of this article appears on bmj.com

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and methods Results Discussion References

1.	Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry. Issues list for Part I of the Inquiry. www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/final_report/annex_b/images/issues_L-2.pdf (accessed 1 November 2001).
2.	Aylin P, Alves B, Best N, Cook A, Elliott P, Evans SJ, et al. Comparison of UK paediatric cardiac surgical performance by analysis of routinely collected data 1984-1996: was Bristol an outlier? Lancet 2001; 358: 181-187[Medline].
3.	Laks MP, Cohen T, Hack R. Volume of procedures at transplantation centers and mortality after liver transplantation [letter]. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1527[Full Text].
4.	Edwards EB, Roberts JP, McBride MA, Schulak JA, Hunsicker LG. The effect of volume of procedures at transplantation centers on mortality after liver transplantation. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 2049-2053[Abstract/Full Text].
5.	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: 963-969[Abstract/Full Text].
6.	Sollano JA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Heitjan DF, Cullinane S, Saha T, et al. Volume-outcome relationships in cardiovascular operations: New York State, 1990-1995. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 117: 419-430[Abstract/Full Text].
7.	Jenkins K, 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: 323-330[Abstract].
8.	Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry. The inquiry into the management of care of children receiving complex heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 2 Jul 2001).
9.	Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R, Rennie DJ, Milstein A. Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA 2000; 283: 1159-1166[Medline].
10.	Posnett J. Is bigger better? Concentration in the provision of secondary care. BMJ 1999; 319: 1063-1065[Full Text].

(Accepted 29 August 2001)