Literature DB >> 24842507

Is emergency department quality related to other hospital quality domains?

Megan McHugh1, Jennifer Neimeyer, Emilie Powell, Rahul K Khare, James G Adams.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Systems theory suggests that there should be relatively high correlations among quality measures within an organization. This was an examination of hospital performance across three types of quality measures included in Medicare's Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program: emergency department (ED)-related clinical process measures, inpatient clinical process measures, and patient experience measures. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether hospital achievement and improvement on the ED quality measures represent a distinct domain of quality.
METHODS: This was an exploratory, descriptive analysis using publicly available data. Composite scores for the ED, inpatient, and patient experience measures included in the HVBP program were calculated. Correlations and frequencies were run to examine the extent to which achievement and improvement were related across the three quality domains and the number of hospitals that were in the top quartile for performance across multiple quality domains.
RESULTS: Achievement scores were calculated for 2,927 hospitals, and improvement scores were calculated for 2,842 hospitals. There was a positive, moderate correlation between ED and inpatient achievement scores (correlation coefficient of 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.53), but all other correlations were weak (0.16 or less). Only 96 hospitals (3.3%) scored in the top quartile for achievement across the three quality domains; 73 (2.6%) scored in the top quartile for improvement across all three quality domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Little consistency was found in achievement or improvement across the three quality domains, suggesting that the ED performance represents a distinct domain of quality. Implications include the following: 1) there are broad opportunities for hospitals to improve, 2) patients may not experience consistent quality levels throughout their hospital visit, 3) quality improvement interventions may need to be tailored specifically to the department, and 4) consumers and policy-makers may not be able to draw conclusions on overall facility quality based on information about one domain.
© 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24842507     DOI: 10.1111/acem.12376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  4 in total

1.  [Potential for the survey of quality indicators based on a national emergency department registry : A systematic literature search].

Authors:  A C Hörster; M Kulla; D Brammen; R Lefering
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 0.840

2.  Weak correlations in health services research: Weak relationships or common error?

Authors:  Alistair James O'Malley; Bruce E Landon; Lawrence A Zaborski; Eric T Roberts; Hazar H Khidir; Peter B Smulowitz; John Michael McWilliams
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Quality of emergency rooms and urgent care services: user satisfaction.

Authors:  Cássio de Almeida Lima; Bruna Tatiane Prates dos Santos; Dina Luciana Batista Andrade; Francielle Alves Barbosa; Fernanda Marques da Costa; Jair Almeida Carneiro
Journal:  Einstein (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2015-08-25

4.  Length of stay as quality indicator in emergency departments: analysis of determinants in the German Emergency Department Data Registry (AKTIN registry).

Authors:  Ronny Otto; Sabine Blaschke; Wiebke Schirrmeister; Susanne Drynda; Felix Walcher; Felix Greiner
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 5.472

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.