Literature DB >> 26056204

Hospitals In 'Magnet' Program Show Better Patient Outcomes On Mortality Measures Compared To Non-'Magnet' Hospitals.

Christopher R Friese1, Rong Xia2, Amir Ghaferi3, John D Birkmeyer4, Mousumi Banerjee5.   

Abstract

Hospital executives pursue external recognition to improve market share and demonstrate institutional commitment to quality of care. The Magnet Recognition Program of the American Nurses Credentialing Center identifies hospitals that epitomize nursing excellence, but it is not clear that receiving Magnet recognition improves patient outcomes. Using Medicare data on patients hospitalized for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, colectomy, or lower extremity bypass in 1998-2010, we compared rates of risk-adjusted thirty-day mortality and failure to rescue (death after a postoperative complication) between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals matched on hospital characteristics. Surgical patients treated in Magnet hospitals, compared to those treated in non-Magnet hospitals, were 7.7 percent less likely to die within thirty days and 8.6 percent less likely to die after a postoperative complication. Across the thirteen-year study period, patient outcomes were significantly better in Magnet hospitals than in non-Magnet hospitals. However, outcomes did not improve for hospitals after they received Magnet recognition, which suggests that the Magnet program recognizes existing excellence and does not lead to additional improvements in surgical outcomes. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hospitals; Medicare; Nurses; Organization and Delivery of Care; Quality Of Care

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26056204      PMCID: PMC4462174          DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0793

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  15 in total

Review 1.  Failure to rescue: lessons from missed opportunities in care.

Authors:  Sean P Clarke
Journal:  Nurs Inq       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.393

Review 2.  Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes?

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Justin B Dimick; Nancy J O Birkmeyer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery.

Authors:  Amir A Ghaferi; John D Birkmeyer; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

Authors:  A Elixhauser; C Steiner; D R Harris; R M Coffey
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity.

Authors:  J Matthew Austin; Ashish K Jha; Patrick S Romano; Sara J Singer; Timothy J Vogus; Robert M Wachter; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Is there a business case for magnet hospitals? Estimates of the cost and revenue implications of becoming a magnet.

Authors:  Jayani Jayawardhana; John M Welton; Richard C Lindrooth
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Hospital nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction.

Authors:  Linda H Aiken; Sean P Clarke; Douglas M Sloane; Julie Sochalski; Jeffrey H Silber
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002 Oct 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Hospital and patient characteristics associated with death after surgery. A study of adverse occurrence and failure to rescue.

Authors:  J H Silber; S V Williams; H Krakauer; J S Schwartz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Lower mortality in magnet hospitals.

Authors:  Matthew D McHugh; Lesly A Kelly; Herbert L Smith; Evan S Wu; Jill M Vanak; Linda H Aiken
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Lower Medicare mortality among a set of hospitals known for good nursing care.

Authors:  L H Aiken; H L Smith; E T Lake
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  19 in total

1.  A Race to the Top? Competitive Pressure and Magnet Adoption Among US Hospitals 1997-2012.

Authors:  Michael R Richards; Karen Lasater; Matthew McHugh
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Commercial quality "awards" are not a strong indicator of quality surgical care.

Authors:  Adrienne N Cobb; Taylor R Erickson; Anai N Kothari; Emanuel Eguia; Sarah A Brownlee; Weiwei Yao; Hyunyou Choi; Victoria Greenberg; Joy Mboya; Michael Voss; Daniela Stan Raicu; Raffaella Settimi-Woods; Paul C Kuo
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  Pathway to better patient care and nurse workforce outcomes in home care.

Authors:  Olga F Jarrín; Youjeong Kang; Linda H Aiken
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 3.250

4.  Correlation of hospital magnet status with the quality of physicians performing neurosurgical procedures in New York State.

Authors:  Kimon Bekelis; Symeon Missios; Todd A MacKenzie
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 1.596

5.  Association of Hospitalization for Neurosurgical Operations in Magnet Hospitals With Mortality and Length of Stay.

Authors:  Symeon Missios; Kimon Bekelis
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.654

6.  Hospitals Known for Nursing Excellence Perform Better on Value Based Purchasing Measures.

Authors:  Karen B Lasater; Hayley D Germack; Dylan S Small; Matthew D McHugh
Journal:  Policy Polit Nurs Pract       Date:  2017-03-17

7.  Comparison of the Value of Nursing Work Environments in Hospitals Across Different Levels of Patient Risk.

Authors:  Jeffrey H Silber; Paul R Rosenbaum; Matthew D McHugh; Justin M Ludwig; Herbert L Smith; Bijan A Niknam; Orit Even-Shoshan; Lee A Fleisher; Rachel R Kelz; Linda H Aiken
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 14.766

8.  Magnet® Hospital Recognition Linked to Lower Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates.

Authors:  Hilary Barnes; Jessica Rearden; Matthew D McHugh
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 2.228

9.  Nonlinear association of nurse staffing and readmissions uncovered in machine learning analysis.

Authors:  Olga Yakusheva; James T Bang; Ronda G Hughes; Kathleen L Bobay; Linda Costa; Marianne E Weiss
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Evidence That Nurses Need to Participate in Diagnosis: Lessons From Malpractice Claims.

Authors:  Kelly Therese Gleason; Rebecca Jones; Christopher Rhodes; Penny Greenberg; Gene Harkless; Chris Goeschel; Maureen Cahill; Mark Graber
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.844

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.