 |
|
Volume and Outcome: Equipoise at Last—Reply
Rocco Ricciardi, MD, MPH;
Nancy N. Baxter, MD, PhD
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
We thank Drs Hogan and Winter for their letter regarding our article. As the authors point out, though our data demonstrate relatively small but persistent differences in mortality between high- and low-volume hospitals, the data, more importantly, reveal a narrowing of this mortality difference. Low-volume hospitals appear to be catching up to high-volume facilities in terms of rates of postoperative mortality, most likely owing to improvements in quality among many low-volume providers. In analyzing our data, it became clear that procedure volume should not be considered to the exclusion of clinical, economic, and social factors when selecting a treatment facility. Patients may well accept a tiny reduction in life expectancy or survival for the convenience, familiarity, and other benefits of a low-volume hospital. It is therefore imperative that we account for patient preferences in care, rather than assigning patients . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Volume-Outcome Relationship for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in an Era of Decreasing Volume
Rocco Ricciardi, Beth A. Virnig, James W. Ogilvie, Jr, Peter S. Dahlberg, Harry P. Selker, and Nancy N. Baxter
Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):338-344.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTER
Volume and Outcome: Equipoise at Last
Aisling M. Hogan and Desmond C. Winter
Arch Surg. 2008;143(12):1235.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
