Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorParry, J M
dc.contributor.authorCollins, S
dc.contributor.authorMathers, J
dc.contributor.authorScott, N A
dc.contributor.authorWoodman, Ciaran B J
dc.date.accessioned2009-12-14T17:01:04Z
dc.date.available2009-12-14T17:01:04Z
dc.date.issued1999-04
dc.identifier.citationInfluence of volume of work on the outcome of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer. 1999, 86 (4):475-81 Br J Surgen
dc.identifier.issn0007-1323
dc.identifier.pmid10215817
dc.identifier.doi10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01064.x
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/87927
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Recent recommendations for the reorganization of cancer services emphasize the importance of a 'minimal acceptable volume of work'. The influence of both hospital and surgical workload has been examined using a population-based series of patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: Nine hundred and twenty-seven patients with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January to 30 June 1993 were identified from the North Western Regional Cancer Registry. Case notes were reviewed for information on patient age and sex, histological diagnosis, disease stage, degree of tumour differentiation, mode of admission, identity of operating surgeon, timing of operative procedure, and use of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed to examine, simultaneously, the effects of patient-, disease- and health service-related variables on survival. RESULTS: Age, tumour stage and differentiation, and mode of admission were revealed as significant independent prognostic variables. After adjusting for these variables, neither operator grade (consultant versus junior), consultant workload nor hospital throughput were identified as independently influencing patient survival. CONCLUSION: The results of this study do not support an association between volume of work and patient outcome.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectColorectal Canceren
dc.subject.meshAdult
dc.subject.meshAged
dc.subject.meshColorectal Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshConsultants
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshHospital Mortality
dc.subject.meshHospitalization
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
dc.subject.meshQuality of Health Care
dc.subject.meshRisk Factors
dc.subject.meshSurvival Analysis
dc.subject.meshSurvival Rate
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcome
dc.subject.meshWorkload
dc.titleInfluence of volume of work on the outcome of treatment for patients with colorectal cancer.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentCentre for Cancer Epidemiology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalThe British Journal of Surgeryen
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Recent recommendations for the reorganization of cancer services emphasize the importance of a 'minimal acceptable volume of work'. The influence of both hospital and surgical workload has been examined using a population-based series of patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: Nine hundred and twenty-seven patients with primary colorectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January to 30 June 1993 were identified from the North Western Regional Cancer Registry. Case notes were reviewed for information on patient age and sex, histological diagnosis, disease stage, degree of tumour differentiation, mode of admission, identity of operating surgeon, timing of operative procedure, and use of radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed to examine, simultaneously, the effects of patient-, disease- and health service-related variables on survival. RESULTS: Age, tumour stage and differentiation, and mode of admission were revealed as significant independent prognostic variables. After adjusting for these variables, neither operator grade (consultant versus junior), consultant workload nor hospital throughput were identified as independently influencing patient survival. CONCLUSION: The results of this study do not support an association between volume of work and patient outcome.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record