Ian J Barbash1,2, Tri Q Le2,3, Francis Pike2, Amber E Barnato2,4,3, Derek C Angus2,3, Jeremy M Kahn1,2,3. 1. 1 Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine. 2. 2 CRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, and. 3. 3 Department of Health Policy & Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. 4 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Current mortality-based critical care performance measurement focuses on intensive care unit (ICU) admissions as a single group, conflating low-severity and high-severity ICU patients for whom performance may differ and neglecting severely ill patients treated solely on hospital wards. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between hospital performance as measured by risk-standardized mortality for severely ill ICU patients, less severely ill ICU patients, and severely ill patients outside the ICU. METHODS: Using a statewide, all-payer dataset from the Pennsylvania Healthcare Cost Containment Council, we analyzed discharge data for patients with nine clinical conditions with frequent ICU use. Using a validated severity-of-illness measure, we categorized hospitalized patients as either high severity (predicted probability of in-hospital death in top quartile) or low severity (all others). We then created three mutually exclusive groups: high-severity ICU admissions, low-severity ICU admissions, and high-severity ward patients. We used hierarchical logistic regression to generate hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates for each group and then compared hospital performance across groups using Spearman's rank correlation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 87 hospitals with 22,734 low-severity ICU admissions (mean per hospital, 261 ± 187), 10,991 high-severity ICU admissions (mean per hospital, 126 ± 105), and 6,636 high-severity ward patients (mean per hospital, 76 ± 48). We found little correlation between hospital performance for high-severity ICU patients versus low-severity ICU patients (ρ = 0.15; P = 0.17). There were 29 hospitals (33%) that moved up or down at least two quartiles of performance across the ICU groups. There was weak correlation between hospital performance for high-severity ICU patients versus high-severity ward patients (ρ = 0.25; P = 0.02). There were 24 hospitals (28%) that moved up or down at least two quartiles of performance across the high-severity groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that perform well in caring for high-severity ICU patients do not necessarily also perform well in caring for low-severity ICU patients or high-severity ward patients, indicating that risk-standardized mortality rates for ICU admissions as a whole offer only a narrow window on a hospital's overall performance for critically ill patients.
RATIONALE: Current mortality-based critical care performance measurement focuses on intensive care unit (ICU) admissions as a single group, conflating low-severity and high-severity ICU patients for whom performance may differ and neglecting severely ill patients treated solely on hospital wards. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between hospital performance as measured by risk-standardized mortality for severely ill ICU patients, less severely ill ICU patients, and severely ill patients outside the ICU. METHODS: Using a statewide, all-payer dataset from the Pennsylvania Healthcare Cost Containment Council, we analyzed discharge data for patients with nine clinical conditions with frequent ICU use. Using a validated severity-of-illness measure, we categorized hospitalized patients as either high severity (predicted probability of in-hospital death in top quartile) or low severity (all others). We then created three mutually exclusive groups: high-severity ICU admissions, low-severity ICU admissions, and high-severity ward patients. We used hierarchical logistic regression to generate hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates for each group and then compared hospital performance across groups using Spearman's rank correlation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 87 hospitals with 22,734 low-severity ICU admissions (mean per hospital, 261 ± 187), 10,991 high-severity ICU admissions (mean per hospital, 126 ± 105), and 6,636 high-severity ward patients (mean per hospital, 76 ± 48). We found little correlation between hospital performance for high-severity ICU patients versus low-severity ICU patients (ρ = 0.15; P = 0.17). There were 29 hospitals (33%) that moved up or down at least two quartiles of performance across the ICU groups. There was weak correlation between hospital performance for high-severity ICU patients versus high-severity ward patients (ρ = 0.25; P = 0.02). There were 24 hospitals (28%) that moved up or down at least two quartiles of performance across the high-severity groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that perform well in caring for high-severity ICU patients do not necessarily also perform well in caring for low-severity ICU patients or high-severity ward patients, indicating that risk-standardized mortality rates for ICU admissions as a whole offer only a narrow window on a hospital's overall performance for critically illpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
critical care; health care quality assessment; health services; intensive care; patient outcome assessment
Authors: Michael W Kuzniewicz; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Rondall Lane; Mitzi L Dean; Nisha G Trivedi; Deborah J Rennie; Ted Clay; Pamela L Kotler; R Adams Dudley Journal: Chest Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Marta L Render; James Deddens; Ron Freyberg; Peter Almenoff; Alfred F Connors; Douglas Wagner; Timothy P Hofer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Elisheva Simchen; Charles L Sprung; Noya Galai; Yana Zitser-Gurevich; Yaron Bar-Lavi; Leon Levi; Fabio Zveibil; Micha Mandel; George Mnatzaganian; Nethanel Goldschmidt; Anat Ekka-Zohar; Inbal Weiss-Salz Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Michael W Sjoding; Hallie C Prescott; Hannah Wunsch; Theodore J Iwashyna; Colin R Cooke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Hannah Wunsch; Jason Wagner; Maximilian Herlim; David H Chong; Andrew A Kramer; Scott D Halpern Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 7.598