Predictors of variation in colorectal cancer care and outcomes in New South Wales: a population-based health data linkage study

Mikaela L Jorgensen, Jane M Young, Timothy A Dobbins and Michael J Solomon
Med J Aust 2014; 200 (7): 403-407. || doi: 10.5694/mja13.10710


Objective: To identify predictors of variation in colorectal cancer care and outcomes in New South Wales.

Design, setting and patients: Multilevel logistic regression analysis using a linked population-based dataset based on the records of patients with cancer of the colon, rectosigmoid junction or rectum who were registered in 2007 and 2008 by the NSW Central Cancer Registry and treated in 105 hospitals in NSW.

Main outcome measures: Six outcome measures (30-day mortality, 28-day emergency readmission, prolonged length of stay, 30-day wound infection, 90-day venous thromboembolism, 1-year mortality) and five care process measures (discussion at multidisciplinary team [MDT] meeting, documented cancer stage, recorded pathological stage, treatment within 31 days of decision to treat, treatment within 62 days of referral).

Results: We analysed data for 6890 people. There was wide variation between hospitals in care process measures, even after adjusting for patient and hospital factors. Older adults were less likely to be discussed at an MDT meeting and receive treatment within suggested time frames (all P < 0.001 for colon cancer). Increasing patient age, greater extent of disease, higher Charlson comorbidity score and resection after emergency admission consistently showed strong evidence of an association with poor outcomes. Much of the variation between hospitals in outcome measures was accounted for by patient characteristics.

Conclusions: Patient characteristics should be included in risk-adjustment models for comparing outcomes between hospitals and for quantifying hospital variation. Further exploration of the reasons why certain hospitals and patients appear to be at risk of poorer care is needed.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full

  • Mikaela L Jorgensen1
  • Jane M Young1
  • Timothy A Dobbins1
  • Michael J Solomon2

  • 1 Cancer Epidemiology and Services Research, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
  • 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Sydney Local Health District and University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.


This research was funded by a Cancer Epidemiology Linkage Grant from the Cancer Institute NSW. We thank the data managers and custodians of each of the data collections used in this study and the staff at the Centre for Health Record Linkage for preparing the data for linkage. We also thank Paul Finan from the University of Leeds for his assistance in developing the indicators.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; Australasian Association of Cancer Registries. Cancer in Australia: an overview 2012. Canberra: AIHW, 2012. (AIHW Cat. No. CAN 70; Cancer Series No. 74.) (accessed May 2013).
  • 2. Young JM, Leong DC, Armstrong K, et al. Concordance with national guidelines for colorectal cancer care in New South Wales: a population-based patterns of care study. Med J Aust 2007; 186: 292-295. <MJA full text>
  • 3. Chagpar R, Xing Y, Chiang YJ, et al. Adherence to stage-specific treatment guidelines for patients with colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 972-979.
  • 4. Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, et al. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States? J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 626-634.
  • 5. McGrath DR, Leong DC, Gibberd R, et al. Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia. ANZ J Surg 2005; 75: 901-910.
  • 6. Morris EJ, Taylor EF, Thomas JD, et al. Thirty-day postoperative mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in England. Gut 2011; 60: 806-813.
  • 7. Habib MR, Solomon MJ, Young JM, et al. Evidence-based and clinical outcome scores to facilitate audit and feedback for colorectal cancer care. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 616-622.
  • 8. Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1185-1202.
  • 9. Sanagou M, Wolfe R, Forbes A, Reid CM. Hospital-level associations with 30-day patient mortality after cardiac surgery: a tutorial on the application and interpretation of marginal and multilevel logistic regression. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 28.
  • 10. Duncan C, Jones K, Moon G. Context, composition and heterogeneity: using multilevel models in health research. Soc Sci Med 1998; 46: 97-117.
  • 11. Young J, Jorgensen M, Dobbins T, Solomon M. CESR technical report 1: the quality and usefulness of the NSW Clinical Cancer Registry Minimum Dataset and Colorectal Dataset Extension for colorectal cancer services research. Sydney: Cancer Epidemiology and Services Research, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, 2012. (accessed May 2013).
  • 12. Mukai M, Kishima K, Yamazaki M, et al. Stage II/III cancer of the rectosigmoid junction: an independent tumor type? Oncol Rep 2011; 26: 737-741.
  • 13. Jorgensen M, Young J, Dobbins T, et al. CESR Supp Table 2: Calculation of surgical outcome and care process indicators for colorectal cancer in NSW, 2007-2008. Sydney: Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, 2013. (accessed Mar 2014).
  • 14. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 173: 676-682.
  • 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) - Technical Paper, 2006. Canberra: ABS, 2008. (ABS Cat. No. 2039.0.55.001.) (accessed May 2013).
  • 16. Iezzoni LI. Risk adjustment for medical effectiveness research: an overview of conceptual and methodological considerations. J Investig Med 1995; 43: 136-150.
  • 17. Department of Health and Aged Care. Measuring remoteness: Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) revised edition. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. (Occasional papers: new series no. 14.) (accessed Mar 2014).
  • 18. Capanu M, Gönen M, Begg CB. An assessment of estimation methods for generalized linear mixed models with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2013; 32: 4550-4566.
  • 19. Larsen K, Petersen JH, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Endahl L. Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects. Biometrics 2000; 56: 909-914.
  • 20. Kelly M, Sharp L, Dwane F, et al. Factors predicting hospital length-of-stay and readmission after colorectal resection: a population-based study of elective and emergency admissions. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 77.
  • 21. Davila JA, Rabeneck L, Berger DH, El-Serag HB. Postoperative 30-day mortality following surgical resection for colorectal cancer in veterans: changes in the right direction. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50: 1722-1728.
  • 22. Osler M, Iversen LH, Borglykke A, et al. Hospital variation in 30-day mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in Denmark: the contribution of hospital volume and patient characteristics. Ann Surg 2011; 253: 733-738.
  • 23. Frederiksen BL, Osler M, Harling H; Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, et al. The impact of socioeconomic factors on 30-day mortality following elective colorectal cancer surgery: a nationwide study. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 1248-1256.
  • 24. Iversen LH, Harling H, Laurberg S, Wille-Jørgensen P. Influence of caseload and surgical speciality on outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: a review of evidence. Part 1: short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9: 28-37.
  • 25. Cancer Institute NSW. Onwards and upwards for 40-year-old registry. Incite: Journal of the Cancer Institute NSW 2012; 10. http://www. (accessed May 2013).
  • 26. Larsen K, Merlo J. Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. Am J Epidemiol 2005; 161: 81-88.
  • 27. Clarke AL, Shearer W, McMillan AJ, Ireland PD. Investigating apparent variation in quality of care: the critical role of clinician engagement. Med J Aust 2010; 193 (8 Suppl): S111-S113. <MJA full text>


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.