Literature DB >> 8501988

An evaluation of generic screens for poor quality of hospital care on a general medicine service.

R A Hayward1, A M Bernard, J S Rosevear, J E Anderson, L F McMahon.   

Abstract

In this study, 675 general medicine admissions at a university teaching hospital were reviewed to evaluate six potential generic quality screens: 1) in-hospital death; 2) 28-day early readmission; 3) low patient satisfaction; 4) worsening severity of illness (as determined by an increase in Laboratory Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation APACHE-L); and 5) deviations from expected hospital length of stay; and 6) expected ancillary resource use. The quality of care for a stratified random sample of admissions were evaluated using structured implicit review (inter-rate reliability, Kappa = 0.5). Patients who died in-hospital were substantially more likely than those who were discharged alive to be rated as having had substandard care (30% vs. 10%; P < 0.001). In contrast, cases who had subsequent early readmissions did not have poorer quality ratings. Similarly, lower patient satisfaction was not associated with poorer ratings of technical process of care. Cases with lower-than-expected ancillary resource use (case-mix adjusted for diagnosis-related group) were more likely to be rated as having received substandard care than those with higher-than-expected resource use (16% vs. 6%; P < 0.05), and there was a similar trend for cases with shorter than expected length of stays. Associations between worsening severity of illness, as determined by APACHE-L scores, and quality were confounded because such patients were more likely to have died in-hospital.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8501988     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199305000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  7 in total

1.  Electronically screening discharge summaries for adverse medical events.

Authors:  Harvey J Murff; Alan J Forster; Josh F Peterson; Julie M Fiskio; Heather L Heiman; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003-03-28       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Acceptance of insurance by psychiatrists and the implications for access to mental health care.

Authors:  Tara F Bishop; Matthew J Press; Salomeh Keyhani; Harold Alan Pincus
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 21.596

3.  Quality initiatives in head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Amy Y Chen
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Continuity of care and patient outcomes after hospital discharge.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Muhammad Mamdani; Jiming Fang; Peter C Austin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  An instrument for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation: development, evaluation, and inter-rater reliability.

Authors:  André Strahl; Christian Gerlich; Georg W Alpers; Jörg Gehrke; Annette Müller-Garnn; Heiner Vogel
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Profiling quality of care: Is there a role for peer review?

Authors:  Timothy P Hofer; Steven M Asch; Rodney A Hayward; Lisa V Rubenstein; Mary M Hogan; John Adams; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Development and evaluation of a standardized peer-training in the context of peer review for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation.

Authors:  André Strahl; Christian Gerlich; Georg W Alpers; Katja Ehrmann; Jörg Gehrke; Annette Müller-Garnn; Heiner Vogel
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 2.463

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.