How do outcomes of hospitals eligible for the American College of Surgeons National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer compare with those of hospitals less likely to be accredited?
This cohort study of 1315 American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals found that those most prepared for accreditation are usually academic institutions with the best survival outcomes. These hospitals more often serve affluent populations.
The current standards and scope of the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer may not reach hospitals and patients most in need of improvement and could exacerbate disparities in access to high-quality care, which may be mitigated by quality improvement interventions and redirection of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients to high-quality accredited institutions.
The American College of Surgeons National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) promotes multidisciplinary care to improve oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer. However, accreditation requirements may be difficult to achieve for the lowest-performing institutions. Thus, it is unknown whether the NAPRC will motivate care improvement in these settings or widen disparities.
To characterize hospitals’ readiness for accreditation and identify differences in the patients cared for in hospitals most and least prepared for accreditation.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A total of 1315 American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015, were sorted into 4 cohorts, organized by high vs low volume and adherence to process standards, and patient and hospital characteristics and oncologic outcomes were compared. The patients included those who underwent surgical resection with curative intent for rectal adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, or signet ring cell carcinoma. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to January 2018.
Hospitals’ readiness for accreditation, as determined by their annual resection volume and adherence to 5 available NAPRC process standards.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Hospital characteristics, patient sociodemographic characteristics, and 5-year survival by hospital.
Among the 1315 included hospitals, 38 (2.9%) met proposed thresholds for all 5 NAPRC process standards and 220 (16.7%) met the threshold on 4 standards. High-volume hospitals (≥20 resections per year) tended to be academic institutions (67 of 104 [64.4%] vs 159 of 1211 [13.1%]; P = .001), whereas low-volume hospitals (<20 resections per year) tended to be comprehensive community cancer programs (530 of 1211 [43.8%] vs 28 of 104 [26.9%]; P = .001). Patients in low-volume hospitals were more likely to be older (11 429 of 28 076 [40.7%] vs 4339 of 12 148 [35.7%]; P < .001) and have public insurance (13 054 of 28 076 [46.5%] vs 4905 of 12 148 [40.4%]; P < .001). Low-adherence hospitals were more likely to care for black and Hispanic patients (1980 of 19 577 [17.2%] vs 3554 of 20 647 [10.1%]; P < .001). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards model regression, high-volume hospitals had better 5-year survival outcomes than low-volume hospitals (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P < .001), but there was no significant survival difference by hospital process standard adherence.
Conclusions and Relevance
Hospitals least likely to receive NAPRC accreditation tended to be community institutions with worse survival outcomes, serving patients at a lower socioeconomic position. To possibly avoid exacerbating disparities in access to high-quality rectal cancer care, the NAPRC study findings suggest enabling access for patients with socioeconomic disadvantage or engaging in quality improvement for hospitals not yet achieving accreditation benchmarks.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Antunez AG, Kanters AE, Regenbogen SE. Evaluation of Access to Hospitals Most Ready to Achieve National Accreditation for Rectal Cancer Treatment. JAMA Surg. Published online February 20, 2019154(6):516–523. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5521
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: