Improving the quality of healthcare in Japan: A systematic review of procedural volume and outcome literature

Hiroaki Miyata, Noboru Motomura, James Kondo, Shinichi Takamoto, Toshihiko Hasegawa

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Though some policies have been implemented based on volume-outcome relationships in Japan, no studies systematically reviewed volume-outcome research conducted in Japan. Original data used in this study were obtained from MEDLINE searches using PubMed or from searches of the Ichushi database and complemented with manual searches. Two investigators reviewed and scored 13 articles, using a standard form to extract information regarding key study characteristics and results. Of the 13 studies we reviewed, 11 studies sought to detect the effects of hospital volume on outcomes while 2 examined the influence of individual physician volumes. Of the 13 studies, 9 studies (69.2%) indicated a statistically significant association between higher hospital volumes and better health outcomes. No study documented a statistically significant association between higher volumes and poorer outcomes. Higher review score is considered to be associated with significant association. The definition of low volume differed widely in each of the studies we reviewed. The 95%CI of healthcare outcomes is considerable even in studies that revealed a significant difference between volumes and outcomes. Higher hospital volumes are thought to be associated with better aggregate healthcare outcomes in Japan. For this reason, minimal-case-number standards might be effective to some extent. However, volume alone is not sufficient to predict the quality of healthcare. In addition, outcome-based evaluation might also be needed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)81-89
Number of pages9
JournalBioScience Trends
Volume1
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Quality of Health Care
High-Volume Hospitals
Japan
Delivery of Health Care
PubMed
MEDLINE
physician
Research Personnel
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Health
Databases
Physicians
health
evaluation
literature

Keywords

  • Evaluation
  • Healthcare
  • Procedural volume
  • Systematic review
  • Volume-outcome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

Improving the quality of healthcare in Japan : A systematic review of procedural volume and outcome literature. / Miyata, Hiroaki; Motomura, Noboru; Kondo, James; Takamoto, Shinichi; Hasegawa, Toshihiko.

In: BioScience Trends, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2007, p. 81-89.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Miyata, Hiroaki ; Motomura, Noboru ; Kondo, James ; Takamoto, Shinichi ; Hasegawa, Toshihiko. / Improving the quality of healthcare in Japan : A systematic review of procedural volume and outcome literature. In: BioScience Trends. 2007 ; Vol. 1, No. 2. pp. 81-89.
@article{2d776e5ca4794ec7ae6c8bddaa6b7077,
title = "Improving the quality of healthcare in Japan: A systematic review of procedural volume and outcome literature",
abstract = "Though some policies have been implemented based on volume-outcome relationships in Japan, no studies systematically reviewed volume-outcome research conducted in Japan. Original data used in this study were obtained from MEDLINE searches using PubMed or from searches of the Ichushi database and complemented with manual searches. Two investigators reviewed and scored 13 articles, using a standard form to extract information regarding key study characteristics and results. Of the 13 studies we reviewed, 11 studies sought to detect the effects of hospital volume on outcomes while 2 examined the influence of individual physician volumes. Of the 13 studies, 9 studies (69.2{\%}) indicated a statistically significant association between higher hospital volumes and better health outcomes. No study documented a statistically significant association between higher volumes and poorer outcomes. Higher review score is considered to be associated with significant association. The definition of low volume differed widely in each of the studies we reviewed. The 95{\%}CI of healthcare outcomes is considerable even in studies that revealed a significant difference between volumes and outcomes. Higher hospital volumes are thought to be associated with better aggregate healthcare outcomes in Japan. For this reason, minimal-case-number standards might be effective to some extent. However, volume alone is not sufficient to predict the quality of healthcare. In addition, outcome-based evaluation might also be needed.",
keywords = "Evaluation, Healthcare, Procedural volume, Systematic review, Volume-outcome",
author = "Hiroaki Miyata and Noboru Motomura and James Kondo and Shinichi Takamoto and Toshihiko Hasegawa",
year = "2007",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "81--89",
journal = "BioScience Trends",
issn = "1881-7815",
publisher = "International Advancement Center for Medicine & Health Research Co., Ltd. (IACMHR Co., Ltd.)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the quality of healthcare in Japan

T2 - A systematic review of procedural volume and outcome literature

AU - Miyata, Hiroaki

AU - Motomura, Noboru

AU - Kondo, James

AU - Takamoto, Shinichi

AU - Hasegawa, Toshihiko

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Though some policies have been implemented based on volume-outcome relationships in Japan, no studies systematically reviewed volume-outcome research conducted in Japan. Original data used in this study were obtained from MEDLINE searches using PubMed or from searches of the Ichushi database and complemented with manual searches. Two investigators reviewed and scored 13 articles, using a standard form to extract information regarding key study characteristics and results. Of the 13 studies we reviewed, 11 studies sought to detect the effects of hospital volume on outcomes while 2 examined the influence of individual physician volumes. Of the 13 studies, 9 studies (69.2%) indicated a statistically significant association between higher hospital volumes and better health outcomes. No study documented a statistically significant association between higher volumes and poorer outcomes. Higher review score is considered to be associated with significant association. The definition of low volume differed widely in each of the studies we reviewed. The 95%CI of healthcare outcomes is considerable even in studies that revealed a significant difference between volumes and outcomes. Higher hospital volumes are thought to be associated with better aggregate healthcare outcomes in Japan. For this reason, minimal-case-number standards might be effective to some extent. However, volume alone is not sufficient to predict the quality of healthcare. In addition, outcome-based evaluation might also be needed.

AB - Though some policies have been implemented based on volume-outcome relationships in Japan, no studies systematically reviewed volume-outcome research conducted in Japan. Original data used in this study were obtained from MEDLINE searches using PubMed or from searches of the Ichushi database and complemented with manual searches. Two investigators reviewed and scored 13 articles, using a standard form to extract information regarding key study characteristics and results. Of the 13 studies we reviewed, 11 studies sought to detect the effects of hospital volume on outcomes while 2 examined the influence of individual physician volumes. Of the 13 studies, 9 studies (69.2%) indicated a statistically significant association between higher hospital volumes and better health outcomes. No study documented a statistically significant association between higher volumes and poorer outcomes. Higher review score is considered to be associated with significant association. The definition of low volume differed widely in each of the studies we reviewed. The 95%CI of healthcare outcomes is considerable even in studies that revealed a significant difference between volumes and outcomes. Higher hospital volumes are thought to be associated with better aggregate healthcare outcomes in Japan. For this reason, minimal-case-number standards might be effective to some extent. However, volume alone is not sufficient to predict the quality of healthcare. In addition, outcome-based evaluation might also be needed.

KW - Evaluation

KW - Healthcare

KW - Procedural volume

KW - Systematic review

KW - Volume-outcome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650447131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67650447131&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 20103873

AN - SCOPUS:67650447131

VL - 1

SP - 81

EP - 89

JO - BioScience Trends

JF - BioScience Trends

SN - 1881-7815

IS - 2

ER -