Literature DB >> 9394202

The policy implications of using hospital and physician volumes as "indicators" of quality of care in a changing health care environment.

K A Phillips1, H S Luft.   

Abstract

There is growing interest in the quality of health care and in using quality measures to direct patients to hospitals and providers offering high quality, low cost health care. The dilemma is that, while there is an increasing need for quality indicators as a result of a changing health care environment, this changing environment has important implications for the use of some of these measures. Since the 1970s, a growing body of research in the U.S. has addressed the empirical relationship between the number of patients with a specific diagnosis of surgical procedure and their outcomes after treatment in a particular hospital or by a particular physician ("volume-outcome" studies). In this paper, we examine the policy implications of using hospital and physician volume information as an "indicator" of quality in a rapidly changing health care environment with new players and new incentives. We begin by describing the evolution of the use of volumes within both regulatory and market-oriented contexts in the U.S. We then discuss policy considerations and cautions in using volumes, along with suggestions for future research. Our purpose is to point out potential problems and clarify confusions about the use of volumes, so that policymakers and practitioners can be sensitive to the potential minefields they are traversing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9394202     DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/9.5.341

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care        ISSN: 1353-4505            Impact factor:   2.038


  8 in total

1.  Hospital volume, length of stay, and readmission rates in high-risk surgery.

Authors:  Philip P Goodney; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Emily V A Finlayson; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Hospital volume of throughput and periprocedural and medium-term adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention: retrospective cohort study of all 17,417 procedures undertaken in Scotland, 1997-2003.

Authors:  K R Burton; R Slack; K G Oldroyd; A C H Pell; A D Flapan; I R Starkey; H Eteiba; K P Jennings; R J Northcote; W Stewart Hillis; J P Pell
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-05-18       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  Hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery volume and patient mortality, 1998-2000.

Authors:  Saif S Rathore; Andrew J Epstein; Kevin G M Volpp; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Modeling the volume-effectiveness relationship in the case of hip fracture treatment in Finland.

Authors:  Reijo Sund
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Hospital percutaneous coronary intervention volume and patient mortality, 1998 to 2000: does the evidence support current procedure volume minimums?

Authors:  Andrew J Epstein; Saif S Rathore; Kevin G M Volpp; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Type and case volume of health care facility influences survival and surgery selection in cases with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Shidan Wang; Sunny Lai; Mitchell S von Itzstein; Lin Yang; Donghan M Yang; Xiaowei Zhan; Guanghua Xiao; Ethan A Halm; David E Gerber; Yang Xie
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-09-10       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Externalities in a life cycle model with endogenous survival.

Authors:  Michael Kuhn; Stefan Wrzaczek; Alexia Prskawetz; Gustav Feichtinger
Journal:  J Math Econ       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 0.725

8.  Good pharmacy practice assessment among community pharmacies in Lebanon.

Authors:  Danielle A Badro; Hala Sacre; Souheil Hallit; Ali Amhaz; Pascale Salameh
Journal:  Pharm Pract (Granada)       Date:  2020-03-16
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.