BACKGROUND: Congress, veterans' groups, and the press have expressed concerns that access to care and quality of care in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) settings are inferior to access and quality in non-VA settings. OBJECTIVE: To assess quality of outpatient and inpatient care in VA at the national level and facility level and to compare performance between VA and non-VA settings using recent performance measure data. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission measures, and ORYX measures for inpatient safety and effectiveness; Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) measures for outpatient effectiveness; and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Hospital Survey (HCAHPS) and Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP) survey measures for inpatient patient-centeredness. For inpatient care, we used propensity score matching to identify a subset of non-VA hospitals that were comparable to VA hospitals. KEY RESULTS: VA hospitals performed on average the same as or significantly better than non-VA hospitals on all six measures of inpatient safety, all three inpatient mortality measures, and 12 inpatient effectiveness measures, but significantly worse than non-VA hospitals on three readmission measures and two effectiveness measures. The performance of VA facilities was significantly better than commercial HMOs and Medicaid HMOs for all 16 outpatient effectiveness measures and for Medicare HMOs, it was significantly better for 14 measures and did not differ for two measures. High variation across VA facilities in the performance of some quality measures was observed, although variation was even greater among non-VA facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The VA system performed similarly or better than the non-VA system on most of the nationally recognized measures of inpatient and outpatient care quality, but high variation across VA facilities indicates a need for targeted quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: Congress, veterans' groups, and the press have expressed concerns that access to care and quality of care in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) settings are inferior to access and quality in non-VA settings. OBJECTIVE: To assess quality of outpatient and inpatient care in VA at the national level and facility level and to compare performance between VA and non-VA settings using recent performance measure data. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission measures, and ORYX measures for inpatient safety and effectiveness; Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) measures for outpatient effectiveness; and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Hospital Survey (HCAHPS) and Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP) survey measures for inpatient patient-centeredness. For inpatient care, we used propensity score matching to identify a subset of non-VA hospitals that were comparable to VA hospitals. KEY RESULTS: VA hospitals performed on average the same as or significantly better than non-VA hospitals on all six measures of inpatient safety, all three inpatient mortality measures, and 12 inpatient effectiveness measures, but significantly worse than non-VA hospitals on three readmission measures and two effectiveness measures. The performance of VA facilities was significantly better than commercial HMOs and Medicaid HMOs for all 16 outpatient effectiveness measures and for Medicare HMOs, it was significantly better for 14 measures and did not differ for two measures. High variation across VA facilities in the performance of some quality measures was observed, although variation was even greater among non-VA facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The VA system performed similarly or better than the non-VA system on most of the nationally recognized measures of inpatient and outpatient care quality, but high variation across VA facilities indicates a need for targeted quality improvement.
Entities:
Keywords:
Veterans Affairs; Veterans Health Administration; quality; veterans
Authors: Amal N Trivedi; Sierra Matula; Isomi Miake-Lye; Peter A Glassman; Paul Shekelle; Steven Asch Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sierra R Matula; Amal N Trivedi; Isomi Miake-Lye; Peter A Glassman; Paul Shekelle; Steven Asch Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Sudhakar V Nuti; Li Qin; John S Rumsfeld; Joseph S Ross; Frederick A Masoudi; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Karthik Murugiah; Susannah M Bernheim; Lisa G Suter; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William G Lehrman; Marc N Elliott; Elizabeth Goldstein; Megan K Beckett; David J Klein; Laura A Giordano Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Eddie Blay; John Oliver DeLancey; D Brock Hewitt; Jeanette W Chung; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Birga Maier; Katrin Wagner; Steffen Behrens; Leonhard Bruch; Reinhard Busse; Dagmar Schmidt; Helmut Schühlen; Roland Thieme; Heinz Theres Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Erin M Corsini; Jessica G Y Luc; Kyle G Mitchell; Nadine S Turner; Ara A Vaporciyan; Mara B Antonoff Journal: Surg Today Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: Clinton L Greenstone; Jennifer Peppiatt; Kristin Cunningham; Christina Hosenfeld; Michelle Lucatorto; Michael Rubin; Adrienne Weede Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert E Burke; Anne Canamucio; Thomas J Glorioso; Anna E Barón; Kira L Ryskina Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sridharan Raghavan; Yuk-Lam Ho; Vinay Kini; Mary K Rhee; Jason L Vassy; David R Gagnon; Kelly Cho; Peter W F Wilson; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Laura J Spece; Lucas M Donovan; Matthew F Griffith; Thomas Keller; Laura C Feemster; Nicholas L Smith; David H Au Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2020-05