OnCo
ideasIdea

Public risk-adjusted outcome reporting for cancer surgery to drive centralisation

Where you have your cancer operation strongly affects whether you survive it. Publishing each hospital's adjusted results would push complex surgery towards the centres that do it well.

National mandatory reporting of risk-adjusted 90-day mortality, major complications, margin status, lymph node yield and volume for major cancer operations (oesophagectomy, pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, cystectomy, hepatectomy, lung resection), published by hospital and, for high-volume procedures, by surgeon, with minimum volume thresholds for commissioning. The volume-outcome relationship in complex cancer surgery is among the most robust findings in health services research; the Netherlands, Denmark and parts of England have centralised and improved mortality. Public reporting plus commissioning thresholds is a policy lever that requires no new science and little money.

Hypothesis
Mandatory public reporting with volume thresholds reduces 90-day mortality for oesophagectomy and pancreatectomy by at least a quarter within three years through centralisation and quality improvement, without reducing access measured by resection rates.
Rationale
Dutch centralisation of oesophageal and pancreatic surgery reduced mortality substantially; the Netherlands' DICA audit and Sweden's registries show public, audited outcomes drive improvement. Many systems still permit very low-volume complex cancer surgery.
What would test it
Introduce reporting and thresholds in one country and compare mortality, complication and resection rates with the preceding period and with a country without reporting.
Maturity
being tested at scale
Who has to act
policy
Cost to try
Small (under $1M)
Years to first evidence
3
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

9top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links