Literature DB >> 17164455

Relationship between Medicare's hospital compare performance measures and mortality rates.

Rachel M Werner1, Eric T Bradlow.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: In response to concerns about the quality of care in US hospitals, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began measuring hospital performance and reporting this performance on their Web site, Hospital Compare. It is unknown whether these process performance measures are related to hospital-level outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether quality measured with the process measures used in Hospital Compare are correlated with and predictive of hospitals' risk-adjusted mortality rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study of hospital care between January 1 and December 31, 2004, for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals in the United States included on the Hospital Compare Web site. Ten process performance measures included in Hospital Compare were compared with hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates, which were measured using Medicare Part A claims data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Condition-specific inpatient, 30-day, and 1-year risk-adjusted mortality rates.
RESULTS: A total of 3657 acute care hospitals were included in the study based on their performance as reported in Hospital Compare. Across all acute myocardial infarction performance measures, the absolute reduction in risk-adjusted mortality rates between hospitals performing in the 25th percentile vs those performing in the 75th percentile was 0.005 for inpatient mortality, 0.006 for 30-day mortality, and 0.012 for 1-year mortality (P<.001 for each comparison). For the heart failure performance measures, the absolute mortality reduction was smaller, ranging from 0.001 for inpatient mortality (P = .03) to 0.002 for 1-year mortality (P = .08). For the pneumonia performance measures, the absolute reduction in mortality ranged from 0.001 for 30-day mortality (P = .05) to 0.005 for inpatient mortality (P<.001). Differences in mortality rates for hospitals performing in the 75th percentile on all measures within a condition vs those performing lower than the 25th percentile on all reported measures for acute myocardial infarction ranged between 0.008 (P = .06) and 0.018 (P = .008). For pneumonia, the effects ranged between 0.003 (P = .09) and 0.014 (P<.001); for heart failure, the effects ranged between -0.013 (P = .06) and -0.038 (P = .45).
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital performance measures predict small differences in hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates. Efforts should be made to develop performance measures that are tightly linked to patient outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17164455     DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.22.2694

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  134 in total

1.  From simply inaccurate to complex and inaccurate: complexity in standards-based quality measures.

Authors:  David A Dorr; Aaron M Cohen; Marsha Pierre-Jacques Williams; John Hurdle
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2011-10-22

2.  Determining population based mortality risk in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authors:  Theodore Stefos; Laura Lehner; Marta Render; Eileen Moran; Peter Almenoff
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2011-12-14

3.  What is the best way to estimate hospital quality outcomes? A simulation approach.

Authors:  Andrew Ryan; James Burgess; Robert Strawderman; Justin Dimick
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Physician tiering by health plans in Massachusetts.

Authors:  Ajay D Wadgaonkar; Eric C Schneider; Timothy Bhattacharyya
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Viewing health care delivery as science: challenges, benefits, and policy implications.

Authors:  Peter J Pronovost; Christine A Goeschel
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  CURB-65 pneumonia severity assessment adapted for electronic decision support.

Authors:  Barbara E Jones; Jason Jones; Thomas Bewick; Wei Shen Lim; Dominik Aronsky; Samuel M Brown; Wim G Boersma; Menno M van der Eerden; Nathan C Dean
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 9.410

7.  Relationship between Leapfrog Safe Practices Survey and outcomes in trauma.

Authors:  Laurent G Glance; Andrew W Dick; Turner M Osler; J Wayne Meredith; Patricia W Stone; Yue Li; Dana B Mukamel
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2011-10

8.  Association of Admission to Veterans Affairs Hospitals vs Non-Veterans Affairs Hospitals With Mortality and Readmission Rates Among Older Men Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, or Pneumonia.

Authors:  Sudhakar V Nuti; Li Qin; John S Rumsfeld; Joseph S Ross; Frederick A Masoudi; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Karthik Murugiah; Susannah M Bernheim; Lisa G Suter; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Measuring quality in health care and its implications for pay-for-performance initiatives.

Authors:  Kevin C Chung; Melissa J Shauver
Journal:  Hand Clin       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.907

Review 10.  Excellent Patient Care Processes in Poor Hospitals? Why Hospital-Level and Patient-Level Care Quality-Outcome Relationships Can Differ.

Authors:  John W Finney; Keith Humphreys; Daniel R Kivlahan; Alex H S Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.