Unexplained Variations in Patient Admissions: Part II

Original story posted on: August 28, 2017

For my last article, I wrote about unexplained clinical variation as it pertains to surgical procedures. Today I continue exploring this theme.

For men with low-risk prostate cancer, randomized controlled trials have found that active treatment such as radiation or prostatectomy does not improve mortality rates as compared to an initial approach of observation. Thus, evidence-based guidelines conclude that observation is a reasonable initial strategy.

An analysis of a national database by Tyson and colleagues published this year included over 20,000 men over 66 years of age with low-risk prostate cancer and their nearly 1,900 treating urologists. Wide variation in the utilization of observation as a treatment strategy was found. Some urologists employed observation 5 to 30 percent of the time, while others used it as often as 60 to 70 percent of the time.

Considering the significant adverse effects of active treatment, such as impotence and urinary incontinence, and the lack of demonstrated mortality benefit of active treatment in low-risk patients, this degree of variation is concerning, from a cost perspective as well as a patient safety perspective.

Another area in which we can assess unexplained clinical variation is treatment of carotid artery stenosis.

When symptomatic, as stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), revascularization can be beneficial in terms of ensuring reduced subsequent incidence of stroke. When a patient is asymptomatic (that is, no history of stroke or TIA), treatment of carotid artery stenosis is more controversial. Evidence-based guidelines suggest that for asymptomatic patients, revascularization only should be considered in the presence of at least 70 percent stenosis, and even in this group, whether the procedure is beneficial or harmful is a close call.

With this as background, examination of the results of a study published this year by Shean and colleagues is relevant. They examined a database of over 57,000 carotid revascularization procedures, 85 percent carotid endarterectomy and 15 percent carotid artery stenting. For endarterectomy, the percentage of treated patients who were asymptomatic varied across regions from 46 to 69 percent, and for stenting from 29 to 51 percent.

Limiting the analysis to asymptomatic patients with stenosis of less than 70 percent, for whom revascularization is not of clear benefit, we find variation, but also disturbingly high utilization rates. The proportion of endarterectomies that were performed on this group varied threefold, from 3 to 9 percent, and for carotid stenting it varied more than sevenfold, from 3 percent to a stunning 22 percent.

Beyond the observed variation, it is difficult to account for a significant number of procedures being performed on patients for whom the risks almost certainly outweigh the potential benefits.

It is this sort of variation and questionable utilization that makes use of evidence-based guidelines so necessary. The twin concerns regarding cost and patient safety demand attention. At the same time, it is only through use of guidelines that are evidence-based and clinically valid that we can safely and appropriately intervene.

Substituting arbitrary criteria or target utilization rates is neither appropriate nor beneficial to patients. It is through the application of guidelines that are clinically sound and evidence-based, such as those produced by MCG, that we can address both the cost and the safety aspects of unexplained clinical variation.

Links to cited studies:

Shean KE, et al. Regional variation in patient selection and treatment for carotid artery disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2017;66(1):112-121. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.01.023.

Tyson MD, et al. Urologist-level correlation in the use of observation for low- and high-risk prostate cancer. JAMA Surgery 2017;152(1):27-34. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2907.

Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this information at the time it was published. However, due to the nature of industry changes over time we cannot guarantee its validity after the year it was published.
Bill Rifkin MD, FHM, FACP

Dr. Rifkin is the managing editor and physician relations specialist at MCG. He oversees research, guideline writing, and other content development focused on acute inpatient care. Before joining MCG in 2009, he was an associate professor of clinical medicine and the director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program at Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. Prior to that, he was an academic hospitalist and associate residency program director at two other New York City hospitals and at the Yale Primary Care Internal Medicine Residency in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Rifkin is board-certified in internal medicine.

Related Stories

  • Proposed Biannual ICD-10 Implementation Dates: Weighing the Pros & Cons 
    Understanding the impact on business processes in the event that biannual ICD-10-CM and PCS updates are implemented is essential – as is your feedback.  With a comprehensive agenda covered at the virtual ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting earlier this…
  • CDC Releases Updated Guidelines
    The guidelines are effective from Jan. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2021. On Dec. 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released updated ICD-10-CM Official Coding and Reporting Guidelines for 2021. The updated document can be found…
  • ICD-10 Codes Amid the Pandemic and the U.S. Election
    The mood of the country impacts claims. There are a few words that can be associated with the pandemic and the election. These words are the following: Stress – a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from…