Literature DB >> 2120476

Measuring quality of care with explicit process criteria before and after implementation of the DRG-based prospective payment system.

K L Kahn1, W H Rogers, L V Rubenstein, M J Sherwood, E J Reinisch, E B Keeler, D Draper, J Kosecoff, R H Brook.   

Abstract

We developed explicit process criteria and scales for Medicare patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, cerebrovascular accident, and hip fracture. We applied the process scales to a nationally representative sample of 14,012 patients hospitalized before and after the implementation of the diagnosis related group-based prospective payment system. For the four medical diseases, a better process of care resulted in lower mortality rates 30 days after admission. Patients in the upper quartile of process scores had a 30-day mortality rate 5% lower than that of patients in the lower quartile. The process of care improved after the introduction of the prospective payment system; eg, better nursing care after the introduction of the prospective payment system was associated with an expected decrease in 30-day mortality rates in pneumonia patients of 0.8 percentage points, and better physician cognitive performance was associated with an expected decrease in 30-day mortality rates of 0.4 percentage points. Overall, process improvements across all four medical conditions were associated with a 1 percentage point reduction in 30-day mortality rates after the introduction of the prospective payment system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2120476

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


  53 in total

1.  New Zealand and United Kingdom experiences with the RAND modified Delphi approach to producing angina and heart failure criteria for quality assessment in general practice.

Authors:  S A Buetow; G D Coster
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-12

2.  Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care.

Authors:  S M Campbell; J Braspenning; A Hutchinson; M Marshall
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-12

3.  Dispensing rates of four common hearing aid product features: associations with variations in practice among audiologists.

Authors:  Earl E Johnson; Todd A Ricketts
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-05-10

Review 4.  Teaching hospitals and quality of care: a review of the literature.

Authors:  John Z Ayanian; Joel S Weissman
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 5.  Does what nurses do affect clinical outcomes for hospitalized patients? A review of the literature.

Authors:  J L Lee; B L Chang; M L Pearson; K L Kahn; L V Rubenstein
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  How good is the quality of health care in the United States? 1998.

Authors:  Mark A Schuster; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Robert H Brook
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 7.  Quality of care: 2. Quality of care studies and their consequences. Health Services Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Preoperative status and risk of complications in patients with hip fracture.

Authors:  Mary Ann McLaughlin; Gretchen M Orosz; Jay Magaziner; Edward L Hannan; Thomas McGinn; R Sean Morrison; Tsivia Hochman; Kenneth Koval; Marvin Gilbert; Albert L Siu
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Did the 1997 balanced budget act reduce use of physical and occupational therapy services?

Authors:  Nancy K Latham; Alan M Jette; Long H Ngo; Jane Soukup; Lisa I Iezzoni
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 10.  Measuring quality of surgical care: is it attainable?

Authors:  Kevin C Chung; Rod J Rohrich
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.730

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.