FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2001323839> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2001323839 endingPage "1841" @default.
• W2001323839 startingPage "1840" @default.
• W2001323839 abstract "We read with great interest the article by Sundaresan and associates [1Sundaresan S. Langer B. Oliver T. Schwartz F. Brouwers M. Stern H. Expert Panel on Thoracic Surgical OncologyStandards for thoracic surgical oncology in a single-payer healthcare system.Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 84: 693-701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar], proposing quality standards for centers performing thoracic surgical oncology. Regarding lung cancer surgery, the authors attempted to set hospital volume criteria, recommending a target of 150 anatomic pulmonary resections per year for level 1 centers, and at least 50 per year for level 2. We have two comments. First of all, the title of the article states that these standards are meant for countries with single-payer healthcare systems, as implemented in Canada, the Netherlands, and most European countries. However, most of their evidence originates from database studies derived from the United States, where such a universal health care system is absent. As previously emphasized in a review by Urbach and associates [2Urbach D.R. Croxford R. MacCallum N.L. Stukel T.A. How are volume-outcome associations related to models of health care funding and delivery? A comparison of the United States and Canada.World J Surg. 2005; 29: 1230-1233Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar], the healthcare system in the United States could promote competition between hospitals and providers, overexposing any possible variations in quality of care. Indeed, while most United States-based publications have found an association between higher hospital volume and lower hospital mortality after lung cancer surgery, this relationship has yet to be confirmed in European reports. In our own volume-outcome study using data from the Amsterdam Cancer Registry with 1,815 patients, we also failed to find such an association (data submitted for publication).Secondly, in a recent supplement from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery [3Shahian D.M. Edwards F.H. Ferraris V.A. et al.Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task ForceQuality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 1: conceptual framework and measure selection.Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 83: S3-S12Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (200) Google Scholar], the Quality Measurement Task Force assembled by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has published guidelines on quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery. They propose that quality assessments should assess each of Donabedian's three domains of quality: (1) structure, (2) process, and (3) outcomes. For thoracic surgical oncology, Sundaresan and associates [1Sundaresan S. Langer B. Oliver T. Schwartz F. Brouwers M. Stern H. Expert Panel on Thoracic Surgical OncologyStandards for thoracic surgical oncology in a single-payer healthcare system.Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 84: 693-701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar] have set only standards for structural features and organization of thoracic surgical oncology. However, we believe that outcome-related endpoints are the most important to patients, and these should form an essential part in assessment of quality of care. Although the authors suggest that the implementation of their standards will result in better patient outcomes, their structural standards for quality are no substitute for properly case mix-adjusted outcome measures such as surgical resection rate, hospital mortality, rate of (neo)adjuvant therapy, and ultimately, long-term survival. We eagerly await the efforts to formulate benchmarks and standards to assess process- and outcome-related quality of care after lung cancer surgery. We read with great interest the article by Sundaresan and associates [1Sundaresan S. Langer B. Oliver T. Schwartz F. Brouwers M. Stern H. Expert Panel on Thoracic Surgical OncologyStandards for thoracic surgical oncology in a single-payer healthcare system.Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 84: 693-701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar], proposing quality standards for centers performing thoracic surgical oncology. Regarding lung cancer surgery, the authors attempted to set hospital volume criteria, recommending a target of 150 anatomic pulmonary resections per year for level 1 centers, and at least 50 per year for level 2. We have two comments. First of all, the title of the article states that these standards are meant for countries with single-payer healthcare systems, as implemented in Canada, the Netherlands, and most European countries. However, most of their evidence originates from database studies derived from the United States, where such a universal health care system is absent. As previously emphasized in a review by Urbach and associates [2Urbach D.R. Croxford R. MacCallum N.L. Stukel T.A. How are volume-outcome associations related to models of health care funding and delivery? A comparison of the United States and Canada.World J Surg. 2005; 29: 1230-1233Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar], the healthcare system in the United States could promote competition between hospitals and providers, overexposing any possible variations in quality of care. Indeed, while most United States-based publications have found an association between higher hospital volume and lower hospital mortality after lung cancer surgery, this relationship has yet to be confirmed in European reports. In our own volume-outcome study using data from the Amsterdam Cancer Registry with 1,815 patients, we also failed to find such an association (data submitted for publication). Secondly, in a recent supplement from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery [3Shahian D.M. Edwards F.H. Ferraris V.A. et al.Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task ForceQuality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 1: conceptual framework and measure selection.Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 83: S3-S12Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (200) Google Scholar], the Quality Measurement Task Force assembled by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has published guidelines on quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery. They propose that quality assessments should assess each of Donabedian's three domains of quality: (1) structure, (2) process, and (3) outcomes. For thoracic surgical oncology, Sundaresan and associates [1Sundaresan S. Langer B. Oliver T. Schwartz F. Brouwers M. Stern H. Expert Panel on Thoracic Surgical OncologyStandards for thoracic surgical oncology in a single-payer healthcare system.Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 84: 693-701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar] have set only standards for structural features and organization of thoracic surgical oncology. However, we believe that outcome-related endpoints are the most important to patients, and these should form an essential part in assessment of quality of care. Although the authors suggest that the implementation of their standards will result in better patient outcomes, their structural standards for quality are no substitute for properly case mix-adjusted outcome measures such as surgical resection rate, hospital mortality, rate of (neo)adjuvant therapy, and ultimately, long-term survival. We eagerly await the efforts to formulate benchmarks and standards to assess process- and outcome-related quality of care after lung cancer surgery. ReplyThe Annals of Thoracic SurgeryVol. 85Issue 5PreviewWe thank Drs Li and de Mol for their insightful letter and comments [1] regarding our recent report on thoracic surgical oncology standards in Ontario [2] and we offer the following reply. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2001323839 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2001323839 creator A5050776175 @default.
• W2001323839 creator A5088179131 @default.
• W2001323839 date "2008-05-01" @default.
• W2001323839 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2001323839 title "Hospital Volume as a Quality Standard in Lung Cancer Surgery: An Unfinished Debate" @default.
• W2001323839 cites W1971606461 @default.
• W2001323839 cites W2075093006 @default.
• W2001323839 cites W2078288309 @default.
• W2001323839 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.10.019" @default.
• W2001323839 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18442611" @default.
• W2001323839 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2001323839 type Work @default.
• W2001323839 sameAs 2001323839 @default.
• W2001323839 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2001323839 countsByYear W20013238392018 @default.
• W2001323839 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2001323839 hasAuthorship W2001323839A5050776175 @default.
• W2001323839 hasAuthorship W2001323839A5088179131 @default.
• W2001323839 hasBestOaLocation W20013238391 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C2776256026 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C2777589429 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C2778078201 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C2992687050 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C111472728 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C121608353 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C126322002 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C138885662 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C141071460 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C143998085 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C177713679 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C2776256026 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C2777589429 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C2778078201 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C2779530757 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C2992687050 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C61434518 @default.
• W2001323839 hasConceptScore W2001323839C71924100 @default.
• W2001323839 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2001323839 hasLocation W20013238391 @default.
• W2001323839 hasLocation W20013238392 @default.
• W2001323839 hasOpenAccess W2001323839 @default.
• W2001323839 hasPrimaryLocation W20013238391 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W2019991969 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W2165367027 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W2372561159 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W2375344515 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W2467843613 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W3144947896 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W37361280 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W4200603105 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W4255201546 @default.
• W2001323839 hasRelatedWork W3128110031 @default.
• W2001323839 hasVolume "85" @default.
• W2001323839 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2001323839 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2001323839 magId "2001323839" @default.
• W2001323839 workType "article" @default.