Anupam B Jena1, Eric C Sun, John A Romley. 1. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (A.B.J.); Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University Hospitals, Stanford, CA (E.C.S.); and the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA and RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA (J.A.R.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of whether inpatient mortality in US teaching hospitals rises in July as a result of organizational disruption and relative inexperience of new physicians (July effect) find small and mixed results, perhaps because study populations primarily include low-risk inpatients whose mortality outcomes are unlikely to exhibit a July effect. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the US Nationwide Inpatient sample, we estimated difference-in-difference models of mortality, percutaneous coronary intervention rates, and bleeding complication rates, for high- and low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 98 teaching-intensive and 1353 non-teaching-intensive hospitals during May and July 2002 to 2008. Among patients in the top quartile of predicted acute myocardial infarction mortality (high risk), adjusted mortality was lower in May than July in teaching-intensive hospitals (18.8% in May, 22.7% in July, P<0.01), but similar in non-teaching-intensive hospitals (22.5% in May, 22.8% in July, P=0.70). Among patients in the lowest three quartiles of predicted acute myocardial infarction mortality (low risk), adjusted mortality was similar in May and July in both teaching-intensive hospitals (2.1% in May, 1.9% in July, P=0.45) and non-teaching-intensive hospitals (2.7% in May, 2.8% in July, P=0.21). Differences in percutaneous coronary intervention and bleeding complication rates could not explain the observed July mortality effect among high risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk acute myocardial infarction patients experience similar mortality in teaching- and non-teaching-intensive hospitals in July, but lower mortality in teaching-intensive hospitals in May. Low-risk patients experience no such July effect in teaching-intensive hospitals.
BACKGROUND: Studies of whether inpatient mortality in US teaching hospitals rises in July as a result of organizational disruption and relative inexperience of new physicians (July effect) find small and mixed results, perhaps because study populations primarily include low-risk inpatients whose mortality outcomes are unlikely to exhibit a July effect. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the US Nationwide Inpatient sample, we estimated difference-in-difference models of mortality, percutaneous coronary intervention rates, and bleeding complication rates, for high- and low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 98 teaching-intensive and 1353 non-teaching-intensive hospitals during May and July 2002 to 2008. Among patients in the top quartile of predicted acute myocardial infarction mortality (high risk), adjusted mortality was lower in May than July in teaching-intensive hospitals (18.8% in May, 22.7% in July, P<0.01), but similar in non-teaching-intensive hospitals (22.5% in May, 22.8% in July, P=0.70). Among patients in the lowest three quartiles of predicted acute myocardial infarction mortality (low risk), adjusted mortality was similar in May and July in both teaching-intensive hospitals (2.1% in May, 1.9% in July, P=0.45) and non-teaching-intensive hospitals (2.7% in May, 2.8% in July, P=0.21). Differences in percutaneous coronary intervention and bleeding complication rates could not explain the observed July mortality effect among high risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk acute myocardial infarctionpatients experience similar mortality in teaching- and non-teaching-intensive hospitals in July, but lower mortality in teaching-intensive hospitals in May. Low-risk patients experience no such July effect in teaching-intensive hospitals.
Authors: John Q Young; Sumant R Ranji; Robert M Wachter; Connie M Lee; Brian Niehaus; Andrew D Auerbach Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-11 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Apurva A Motivala; Christopher P Cannon; Vankeepuram S Srinivas; David Dai; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Deepak L Bhatt; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R Grant Highstead; Laura S Johnson; Laura C Johnson; James H Street; Christine T Trankiem; Susan O Kennedy; Jack A Sava Journal: J Trauma Date: 2009-11
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; Amy K Rosen; Paul R Rosenbaum; Patrick S Romano; Kamal M F Itani; Lisa Bellini; Orit Even-Shoshan; Liyi Cen; Yanli Wang; Michael J Halenar; Jeffrey H Silber Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Utibe R Essien; Wei He; Alaka Ray; Yuchiao Chang; Jonathan R Abraham; Daniel E Singer; Steven J Atlas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ithan D Peltan; Crystal E Brown; Alson K Burke; Eric J Chow; Ali Rowhani-Rahbar; Matthew R Crull Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Laura Myers; Bassem Mikhael; Paul Currier; Katherine Berg; Anupam Jena; Michael Donnino; Lars W Andersen Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Nitin B Jain; Gregory D Ayers; Emily N Peterson; Mitchel B Harris; Leslie Morse; Kevin C O'Connor; Eric Garshick Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Benjamin G Chousterman; Romain Pirracchio; Bertrand Guidet; Philippe Aegerter; Hervé Mentec Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marco Gonzalez-Castellon; Christine Ju; Ying Xian; Adrian Hernandez; Gregg C Fonarow; Lee Schwamm; Eric E Smith; Deepak L Bhatt; Matthew Reeves; Joshua Z Willey Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 5.501