Search

To compare the performance of U.S. teaching and nonteaching hospitals using a portfolio of contemporary, publicly reported metrics.The authors classified acute care general hospitals filing a Medicare Institutional Cost Report according to teaching intensity: nonteaching, teaching, or Council of Teaching Hospitals member. They compared aggregate results across categories for Hospital Compare process compliance, mortality, and readmission rates (acute myocardial infarction [AMI], heart failure, pneumonia); Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) performance; compliance with Leapfrog standards; patient experience; patient services and key technologies; safety (computerized physician order entry, intensive care unit staffing, National Quality Forum safe practices, hospital-acquired conditions); and cost/resource utilization (Medicare-adjusted expense per case; Leapfrog efficiency and resource use standards).Availability of patient services and advanced technologies were associated with teaching intensity (P.0001), as were most hospital safety metrics. Teaching intensity was favorably associated with SCIP performance, AMI and heart failure process scores, and mortality (P.0001). It was unfavorably associated with higher AMI and pneumonia readmission rates (P.0001) and lower scores for individual patient satisfaction measures. Costs per case were similar (P = .4194) across hospital categories after correction for federally allowed adjustments (case mix, wages, and low-income patient care).Teaching hospitals offer advanced clinical capabilities, educate the next generation of providers, care for disadvantaged urban populations, and are leaders in health care research and innovation. However, many stakeholders may be unaware of an additional value-relatively higher quality and safety in many areas, with similar adjusted costs.

Recent focus on the need to improve the quality and safety of health care has created new challenges for academic health centers (AHCs). Whereas previously quality was largely assumed, today it is increasingly quantifiable and requires organized systems for improvement. Traditional structures and cultures within AHCs, although well suited to the tripartite missions of teaching, research, and clinical care, are not easily adaptable to the tasks of measuring, reporting, and improving quality. Here, the authors use a case study of Massachusetts General Hospital's efforts to restructure quality and safety to illustrate the value of beginning with a focus on organizational culture, using a systematic process of engaging clinical leadership, developing an organizational framework dependent on proven business principles, leveraging focus events, and maintaining executive dedication to execution of the initiative. The case provides a generalizable example for AHCs of how applying explicit management design can foster robust organizational change with relatively modest incremental financial resources.