Literature DB >> 8686297

Use of risk-adjusted outcome data for quality improvement by public hospitals.

J M Luce1, G D Thiel, M R Holland, L Swig, S A Currin, H S Luft.   

Abstract

In 1993 the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) began public release of risk-adjusted monitoring of outcomes (RAMO) under the California Hospital Outcomes Project. We studied how 17 acute are public hospitals in California used these RAMO data for quality improvement purposes following their initial distribution, first by analyzing the outcome data for San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center as recommended by OSHPD and, second, by querying the departments at the other 16 public hospitals to determine how their own analyses compared. We found that the hospitals generally did minimal analyses of the OSHPD RAMO data and considered the data of little value to them. Only 3 hospitals initiated quality improvement activities based on their data review. The major reasons given by the hospitals for not using the RAMO data were that their outcomes were adequate, as verified by a comparison of their observed outcomes and those expected after risk-adjustment; that the hospitals had too few patients in the diagnostic categories; that they had too few resources; and that they were not concerned with the data's public release. Other possible explanations were that awareness of the California Hospital Outcomes Project was not widespread at the time of the study, that the RAMO data were not distributed in a way that encouraged their use, and that public hospitals were not inclined to use the outcome data because the project was imposed on them. Whatever the explanation, our study suggests that the California Hospital Outcomes Project has had little effect on quality improvement in public hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8686297      PMCID: PMC1303538     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  West J Med        ISSN: 0093-0415


  4 in total

Review 1.  Risk adjusting health care outcomes: a methodologic review.

Authors:  M S Blumberg
Journal:  Med Care Rev       Date:  1986

2.  Measuring quality in California.

Authors:  L Johns
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes.

Authors:  S DesHarnais; L F McMahon; R Wroblewski
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  MedisGroups data bases. The impact of data collection guidelines on predicting in-hospital mortality.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni; E K Hotchkin; A S Ash; M Shwartz; Y Mackiernan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.983

  4 in total
  4 in total

1.  Are diagnosis specific outcome indicators based on administrative data useful in assessing quality of hospital care?

Authors:  I Scott; D Youlden; M Coory
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-02

2.  Survival curves to support quality improvement in hospitals with excess 30-day mortality after acute myocardial infarction, cerebral stroke and hip fracture: a before-after study.

Authors:  Doris Tove Kristoffersen; Jon Helgeland; Halfrid Persdatter Waage; Jacob Thalamus; Dirk Clemens; Anja Schou Lindman; Liv Helen Rygh; Ole Tjomsland
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Selecting effective incentive structures in health care: A decision framework to support health care purchasers in finding the right incentives to drive performance.

Authors:  Thomas Custers; Jeremiah Hurley; Niek S Klazinga; Adalsteinn D Brown
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-03-27       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Hospital response to public reporting of quality indicators.

Authors:  Mary Laschober; Myles Maxfield; Suzanne Felt-Lisk; David J Miranda
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2007
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.