[Volume standards: quality through quantity?; relationship between treatment volume and outcomes not well founded]

There is no fulltext present in this item.

Title:	[Volume standards: quality through quantity?; relationship between treatment volume and outcomes not well founded]
Author(s):	Mesman, R.; Faber, M.J. ; Westert, G.P. ; Berden, B.
Publication year:	2013
Source:	Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, vol. 157, iss. 33, (2013), pp. A5466
ISSN:	0028-2162
Publication type:	Article / Letter to editor
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item : https://hdl.handle.net/2066/119068
Display more details
Subject:	DCN MP - Plasticity and memory NCEBP 10: Human Movement & Fatigue NCEBP 4: Quality of hospital and integrated care
Organization:	IQ Healthcare Neurology
Journal title:	Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde
Volume:	vol. 157
Issue:	iss. 33
Page start:	p. A5466
Abstract:	- Three domains are accepted as indicators that make the quality of hospital care quantifiable and transparent: process, structure and outcome. - In recent years volume thresholds for surgical interventions have been added as new quality indicators, rendering the assumption that more volume leads to better outcomes. - This assumption has been established for many procedures in peer-reviewed literature since the 1970s. - Although there is consensus about the fact that volume is a proxy measure for other factors influencing the outcome of care, available research does not shed much light on the mechanisms underlying the volume-outcome relationship. - Moreover, the methodological quality of the available research has several limitations. - Despite the incomplete substantiation, volume thresholds are now embedded in 'risk-based' supervision by the health inspectorate as well as purchasing policies by health insurers.