Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Addressing unwarranted variations in colorectal cancer outcomes: a conceptual approach

Abstract

In the clinical setting, the term 'unwarranted variation' refers to variations in patient outcomes that cannot be explained by the patient's underlying illness or medical needs, or the dictates of evidence-based medicine. These types of variations persist even after adjusting for patient-specific factors. Unwarranted variation depends on a complex mix of disparities, including inequalities in access to appropriate care in a wide variety of geographical and cultural settings, in the uptake and application of clinical knowledge, in the prioritization and allocation of resources, and differences in organizational and professional culture. Nevertheless, unwarranted variation has been inexorably linked with clinical practice. Thus, awareness of the antecedents of unwarranted variations in clinical practice is strategically important. In this Perspective, we discuss these antecedents in colorectal cancer clinical care pathways with an emphasis upon the multidisciplinary team (MDT), and suggest pragmatic steps that could be taken to address latent unwarranted variation.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Conceptual example of risk scoring of unwarranted variation along critical clinical nodes of a broad rectal cancer emergency care pathway.
Figure 2: Conceptual example of risk scoring of unwarranted variation along critical care nodes of a broad rectal cancer elective care pathway.

References

  1. 1

    Wennberg, J. E. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: Implications for academic medical centres. BMJ 325, 961 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Morris, E. J. et al. Thirty-day postoperative mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in England. Gut 60, 806–813 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    De Angelis, R. et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5 — a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 15, 23–34 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Morris, E. et al. Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene? Gut 57, 1690–1697 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    McArdle, C. S. & Hole, D. Impact of variability among surgeons on postoperative morbidity and mortality and ultimate survival. BMJ 302, 1501–1505 (1991).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Duxbury, M. S., Brodribb, A. J., Oppong, F. C. & Hosie, K. B. Management of colorectal cancer: variations in practice in one hospital. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 29, 400–402 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Raine, R. et al. Social variations in access to hospital care for patients with colorectal, breast, and lung cancer between 1999 and 2006: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 340, b5479 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    McCaffery, K., Wardle, J., Nadel, M. & Atkin, W. Socioeconomic variation in participation in colorectal cancer screening. J. Med. Screen. 9, 104–108 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    [No authors listed.] NHS atlas of variation in healthcare — 2015. RightCare http://www.rightcare.nhs.uk/index.php/atlas/nhs-atlas-of-variation-in-healthcare-2015/ (2016).

  10. 10

    Hetzel, J. T. et al. Variation in the detection of serrated polyps in an average risk colorectal cancer screening cohort. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 105, 2656–2664 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Bowles, C. J. et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 53, 277–283 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    [No authors listed.] National bowel cancer audit. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/bowel (2015).

  13. 13

    Almoudaris, A. et al. Value of failure to rescue as a marker of the standard of care following reoperation for complications after colorectal resection. Br. J. Surg. 98, 1775–1783 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Miller, E. A., Woosley, J., Martin, C. F. & Sandler, R. S. Hospital-to-hospital variation in lymph node detection after colorectal resection. Cancer 101, 1065–1071 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Baxter, N. N. et al. Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97, 219–225 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Schrag, D. et al. Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer. JAMA 284, 3028–3035 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Downing, A. Early mortality from colorectal cancer in England: a retrospective observational study of the factors associated with death in the first year after diagnosis. Br. J. Cancer 108, 681 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Spiegelhalter, D. J. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat. Med. 24, 1185–1202 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Harmon, J. W. et al. Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. Ann. Surg. 230, 404–411; discussion 411–413 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Begg, C. B. et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1138–1144 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Porter, G. A., Soskolne, C. L., Yakimets, W. W. & Newman, S. C. Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer. Ann. Surg. 227, 157–167 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Birbeck, K. F. et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann. Surg. 235, 449–457 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Care, Q. R. The NHS atlas of variation in healthcare: reducing unwarranted variation to increase value and improve quality. RightCare http://www.rightcare.nhs.uk/atlas/index.html (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Weinstein, J. N., Bronner, K. K., Morgan, T. S. & Wennberg, J. E. Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. Health Aff. (Millwood) 23, w81 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Wennberg, J. E. & Cooper, M. M. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (American Hospital Publishing, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    [No authors listed.] NHS atlas of variation in healthcare. RightCare http://www.rightcare.nhs.uk/index.php/nhs-atlas/atlas-of-variation-2011/ (2011).

  27. 27

    Appleby, J. et al. Variations in Health Care: The Good, the Bad and the Inexplicable (King's Fund, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Allemani, C. et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 385, 977–1010 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Dorudi, S., Steele, R. J. & McArdle, C. S. Surgery for colorectal cancer. Br. Med. Bull. 64, 101–118 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    [No authors listed.] National bowel cancer audit. Health & Social Care Information Centre http://www.hscic.gov.uk/bowel (2015).

  31. 31

    Holm, T., Johansson, H., Cedermark, B., Ekelund, G. & Rutqvist, L. Influence of hospital-and surgeon-related factors on outcome after treatment of rectal cancer with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Br. J. Surg. 84, 657–663 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Burns, E. M. et al. Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in england as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 343, d4836 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Hannan, E. L., Radzyner, M., Rubin, D., Dougherty, J. & Brennan, M. F. The influence of hospital and surgeon volume on in-hospital mortality for colectomy, gastrectomy, and lung lobectomy in patients with cancer. Surgery 131, 6–15 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Schrag, D. et al. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 83, 68–78 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Schrag, D. et al. Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann. Surg. 236, 583–592 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Birkmeyer, J. D. et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1128–1137 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Birkmeyer, J. D. et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 2117–2127 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Birkmeyer, J. D., Sun, Y., Wong, S. L. & Stukel, T. A. Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann. Surg. 245, 777–783 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Van Gijn, W. et al. Volume and outcome in colorectal cancer surgery. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 36, S55–S63 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Cornish, J. et al. The national bowel cancer audit project: the impact of organisational structure on outcome in operative bowel cancer within the United Kingdom. Surg. Oncol. 20, e72–e77 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Leach-Kemon, K. et al. The global financial crisis has led to a slowdown in growth of funding to improve health in many developing countries. Health Aff. (Millwood) 31, 228–235 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Brick, A., Nolan, A., O'Reilly, J. & Smith, S. Resource allocation, financing and sustainability in health care. Evidence for the expert group on resource allocation and financing in the health sector 1. The Economic and Social Research Institute https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT167V1.pdf (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    [No authors listed.] Health expenditure. OECD http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-expenditure.htm (2015).

  44. 44

    Evans, B. & Pritchard, C. Cancer survival rates and GDP expenditure on health: a comparison of England and Wales and the USA, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland in the 1990s. Public Health 114, 336–339 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    [No authors listed.] Health expenditure, total (% of GDP). The World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS (2015).

  46. 46

    OECD, Eurostat & WHO. A system of health accounts 2011 (OECD Publishing, 2011).

  47. 47

    OECD. Health at a glance 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19991312 (2015).

  48. 48

    Karamanoli, E. 5 years of austerity takes its toll on greek health care. Lancet 386, 2239–2240 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Donabedian, A. An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Gray, J. M. & Kerr, D. J. How to Get Better Value Cancer Care (Offox Press, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Porter, M. E. What is value in health care? N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 2477–2481 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Francis, R. Report of the mid staffordshire NHS foundation trust public inquiry: executive summary (The Stationery Office, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Mercuri, M. & Gafni, A. Medical practice variations: what the literature tells us (or does not) about what are warranted and unwarranted variations. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 17, 671–677 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Birkmeyer, J. D. et al. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet 382, 1121–1129 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Birkmeyer, J. D., Sharp, S. M., Finlayson, S. R. G., Fisher, E. S. & Wennberg, J. E. Variation profiles of common surgical procedures. Surgery 124, 917–923 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    Fisher, E. S., Wennberg, D. E., Stukel, T. A., Gottlieb, D. J. & Lucas, F. L. The implications of regional variations in medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Ann. Intern. Med. 138, 288–298 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Goodman, D. C. Unwarranted variation in pediatric medical care. Pediatr. Clin. North Am. 56, 745–755 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Jacob, S., Ng, W., Asghari, R., Delaney, G. P. & Barton, M. B. Chemotherapy in rectal cancer: variation in utilization and development of an evidence-based benchmark rate of optimal chemotherapy utilization. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 10, 102–107 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    Lyratzopoulos, G., Vedsted, P. & Singh, H. Understanding missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients after presentation. Br. J. Cancer 112, S84–S91 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60

    [No authors listed.] Colorectal cancer overview — NICE pathways. NICE http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/colorectal-cancer (2016).

  61. 61

    Ghaferi, A. A., Birkmeyer, J. D. & Dimick, J. B. Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 1368–1375 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62

    Van de Velde, C. et al. Experts reviews of the multidisciplinary consensus conference colon and rectal cancer 2012: science, opinions and experiences from the experts of surgery. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 40, 454–468 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    O'Connor, A. M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A. & Flood, A. B. Modifying unwarranted variations in health care: shared decision making using patient decision aids. Health Aff. (Millwood) http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.var.63 (2004).

  64. 64

    Veroff, D., Marr, A. & Wennberg, D. E. Enhanced support for shared decision making reduced costs of care for patients with preference-sensitive conditions. Health Aff. (Millwood) 32, 285–293 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65

    Wennberg, D. E. & Wennberg, J. E. Addressing variations: is there hope for the future. Health Aff. (Millwood) http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.w3.614 (2003).

  66. 66

    Wennberg, J. E. Time to tackle unwarranted variations in practice. BMJ 342, d1513 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    Wennberg, J. E. Practice variations and health care reform: connecting the dots. Health Aff. (Millwood) http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.var.140 (2004).

  68. 68

    Levinson, W., Kao, A., Kuby, A. & Thisted, R. A. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 20, 531–535 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    Gawande, A. Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End (Metropolitan Books, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    [No authors listed.] Brain tumour boy Ashya King free of cancer, parents say. BBC NEWS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32013634 (2015).

  71. 71

    Haynes, A. B. et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 491–499 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72

    de Vries, E. N. et al. Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 1928–1937 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73

    Wolff, A. M., Taylor, S. A. & McCabe, J. F. Using checklists and reminders in clinical pathways to improve hospital inpatient care. Med. J. Aust. 181, 428 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74

    Calman, K. C., Hine, D., Britain, G. & Britain, G. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services. A report by the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales: Guidance for purchasers and providers of cancer services (Department of Health, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75

    Burton, S. et al. MRI directed multidisciplinary team preoperative treatment strategy: the way to eliminate positive circumferential margins? Br. J. Cancer 94, 351–357 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76

    Eddy, D. M. Variations in physician practice: the role of uncertainty. Health Aff. 3, 74–89 (1984).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77

    Hunter, C. & Brown, G. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer: a review of imaging technique. Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 12, 1–15 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78

    Hompes, R. & Cunningham, C. Extending the role of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) in rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 13 (Suppl. 7), 3–7 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.M. researched data for the article, all authors made substantial contributions to discussions of content, M.M. wrote the manuscript, and all authors reviewed and edited the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muralee Menon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Menon, M., Cunningham, C. & Kerr, D. Addressing unwarranted variations in colorectal cancer outcomes: a conceptual approach. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 13, 706–712 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.94

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing