The Pen and the Scalpel

Effect of Diffusion of Information on Nonclinical Variations in Surgical Treatment

Published In: Medical Care, v. 47, no. 7, July 2009, p. 749-757

Posted on on January 01, 2009

by Jennifer J. Griggs, Melony E. Sorbero, Gretchen Ahrendt, Azadeh T. Stark, Susanne E. Heininger, Heather T. Gold, Linda Schiffhauer, Andrew W. Dick

Read More

Access further information on this document at Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND As information is disseminated about best practices, variations in patterns of care should diminish over time. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that differences in rates of a surgical procedure are associated with type of insurance in an era of evolving practice guidelines and that insurance and site differences diminish with time as consensus guidelines disseminate among the medical community. METHODS: We use lymph node dissection among women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as an example of a procedure with uncertain benefit. Using a sample of 1051 women diagnosed from 1985 through 2000 at 2 geographic sites, we collected detailed demographic, clinical, pathologic, and treatment information through abstraction of multiple medical records. We specified multivariate logistic models with flexible functions of time and time interactions with insurance and treatment site to test hypotheses. RESULTS: Lymph node dissection rates varied significantly according to site of treatment and insurance status after controlling for clinical, pathologic, treatment, and demographic characteristics. Rates of lymph node dissection decreased over time, and differences in lymph node dissection rates according to site and generosity of insurance were no longer significant by the end of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that rates of a discretionary surgical procedure differ according to nonclinical factors, such as treatment site and type of insurance, and that such unwarranted.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.