Search

Background: Developing quality metrics to assess hospital-level care and outcomes is increasingly popular in the United States. The U.S. News & World Report ranking of "America's Best Hospitals" is an existing, popular hospital-profiling system, but it is unknown whether top-ranked hospitals in their report have better outcomes according to other hospital quality metrics such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reported 30-day stroke measures., Methods: The analysis was based on the 2015-2016 U.S. News & World Report ranking of the 50 top-rated hospitals for neurology and neurosurgery and 2012-2014 CMS Hospital Compare Data. We used mixed models adjusted for hospital characteristics and weighted by hospital volume to compare 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission between top-ranked and other hospitals. Among the 50 top-ranked hospitals, we determined whether ranking order was associated with the CMS outcomes., Results: Compared with 2737 other hospitals, the 50 top-ranked hospitals had lower 30-day mortality (14.8% versus 15.3%) but higher readmission (14.5% versus 13.3%). These patterns persisted in adjusted analyses with top-ranked hospitals having .72% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.09%, -.34%) lower mortality and .41% (95% CI .16%, .67%) higher readmission. Among top-ranked hospitals, rank order was not associated with mortality (.05% decrease in mortality with each rank, 95% CI -.10%, .01%) or readmission (.02% increase; 95% CI -.03%, .06%)., Conclusion: Admission to a top-ranked hospital for neurology or neurosurgery was associated with lower 30-day risk-standardized mortality but higher readmission after ischemic stroke. There was heterogeneity in outcomes among the 50 top-ranked hospitals., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Variation in the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) across hospitals has been observed, suggesting differences in quality of care. Hospitalization metrics associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients have not been compared based on IVCF utilization rates using a national sample. We conducted a descriptive retrospective study using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) to delineate the variability of hospitalization metrics across the hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization for VTE patients. The NRD included all-payer administrative inpatient records drawn from 22 states. Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with VTE hospitalizations with or without IVCF were identified from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014 and hospitals were divided into quartiles based on the IVCF utilization rate as a proportion of VTE patients. Primary outcome measures were observed rates of in-hospital mortality, 30-day all-cause readmissions and VTE-related readmissions, cost, and length of stay. Patient case-mix characteristics and hospital-level factors by hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization rates, were compared. Overall, 12.29% of VTE patients had IVCF placement, with IVCF utilization ranging from 0% to 46.84%. The highest quartile had fewer pulmonary embolism patients relative to deep vein thrombosis patients, and older patient ages were present in higher quartiles. The highest quartile of hospitals placing IVCFs were more often private, for-profit, and non-teaching. Patient and hospital characteristics and hospitalization metrics varied by IVCF utilization rates, but hospitalization outcomes for non-IVCF patients varied most between quartiles. Future work investigating the implications of IVCF utilization rates as a measure of quality of care for VTE patients is needed.

Objective: Studies from large administrative databases have demonstrated associations between institutional case volume and outcomes after lower extremity bypass (LEB). We hypothesized that increased institutional and surgeon volume would be associated with improved outcomes after LEB. Using a national, prospectively collected clinical database, the objective of this study was to determine the effects of both surgeon and institutional volume on outcomes after LEB., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) was queried to identify all LEBs for critical limb ischemia or claudication between 2004 and 2014. Average annual case volume was calculated by dividing an institution's or surgeon's total LEB volume by the number of years they reported to the VQI. Institutional and surgeon volumes were analyzed as continuous variables to determine the impact of volume on major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), major adverse limb events (MALEs), graft patency, and amputation-free survival. Hierarchical regression models were used with cases clustered by surgeon and center. Time-dependent outcomes were evaluated with multivariable shared frailty Cox proportional hazards models., Results: From 2004 to 2014, there were 14,678 LEB operations performed at 114 institutions by 587 surgeons. Average annual institutional volume ranged from 1.0 to 137.5 LEBs per year, with a median of 26.9 (interquartile range, 14-45.3). Average annual surgeon volume ranged from 1 to 52 LEBs per year with a median of 5.7 (interquartile range, 2.5-9.3). Institutional LEB volume was not associated with MACEs or MALEs or with loss of patency. However, average annual surgeon volume was independently associated with reduced MALEs and improved primary patency. Institutional and surgeon volume did not predict MACEs., Conclusions: In contradistinction to previous studies, there was no relationship in this study between institutional LEB volume and outcomes after LEB. However, greater average annual surgeon volume was associated with improved primary patency and decreased risk of MALEs. Open LEB remains a safe and effective procedure for limb salvage. Limb-related outcomes in critical limb ischemia and claudication will be optimized if surgeons maintain adequate volume of LEB., (Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients report cards of US organ transplant center performance are publicly available and used for quality oversight. Low center performance (LP) evaluations are associated with changes in practice including reduced transplant rates and increased waitlist removals. In 2014, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients implemented new Bayesian methodology to evaluate performance which was not adopted by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In May 2016, CMS altered their performance criteria, reducing the likelihood of LP evaluations., Methods: Our aims were to evaluate incidence, survival rates, and volume of LP centers with Bayesian, historical (old-CMS) and new-CMS criteria using 6 consecutive program-specific reports (PSR), January 2013 to July 2015 among adult kidney transplant centers., Results: Bayesian, old-CMS and new-CMS criteria identified 13.4%, 8.3%, and 6.1% LP PSRs, respectively. Over the 3-year period, 31.9% (Bayesian), 23.4% (old-CMS), and 19.8% (new-CMS) of centers had 1 or more LP evaluation. For small centers (<83 transplants/PSR), there were 4-fold additional LP evaluations (52 vs 13 PSRs) for 1-year mortality with Bayesian versus new-CMS criteria. For large centers (>183 transplants/PSR), there were 3-fold additional LP evaluations for 1-year mortality with Bayesian versus new-CMS criteria with median differences in observed and expected patient survival of -1.6% and -2.2%, respectively., Conclusions: A significant proportion of kidney transplant centers are identified as low performing with relatively small survival differences compared with expected. Bayesian criteria have significantly higher flagging rates and new-CMS criteria modestly reduce flagging. Critical appraisal of performance criteria is needed to assess whether quality oversight is meeting intended goals and whether further modifications could reduce risk aversion, more efficiently allocate resources, and increase transplant opportunities.

Background: Marked variation across hospitals in adverse maternal outcomes in cesarean deliveries is reported, including anesthesia-related adverse events (ARAEs). Identification of hospital-level characteristics accounting for this variation may help guide interventions to improve anesthesia care quality. In this study, we examined the association between hospital-level characteristics and ARAEs in cesarean deliveries and assessed individual hospital performance., Methods: Discharge records for cesarean deliveries, ARAEs, and patient characteristics in the State Inpatient Database for New York State 2009 to 2011 were identified with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The hospital reporting index was calculated as the sum of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes divided by the number of discharges. Data on hospital characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association and the Area Health Resources files. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the association of hospital-level characteristics with ARAEs and to assess individual hospital performance., Results: The study included 236,960 discharges indicating cesarean deliveries in 141 hospitals; 1557 discharges recorded at least 1 ARAE (6.6 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2-6.9). The following factors were associated with a significantly increased risk of ARAEs: Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.2), multiple gestation (aOR, 1.3), postpartum hemorrhage (aOR, 1.5), general anesthesia (aOR, 1.3), hospital annual cesarean delivery volume <200 (aOR, 2.3), and reporting index (aOR, 1.1 per 1 increase per discharge). Fifteen percent of the between-hospital variation in ARAEs was explained by the hospital annual cesarean delivery volume and 6% by the reporting index. Eight hospitals (6%) were classified as good-performing, 104 (74%) as average-performing, and 29 (21%) as bad-performing hospitals. Compared with good-performing hospitals, a 2.3-fold (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) and 5.9-fold (95% CI, 4.5-7.8) increase in the rate of ARAEs was observed in average- and bad-performing hospitals, respectively. Bringing up bad-performing hospitals to the level of average-performing hospitals would prevent 466 ARAEs (30%)., Conclusions: Low cesarean delivery volume is the strongest hospital-level predictor of ARAEs in cesarean deliveries and the main determinant of between-hospital variation. Future study to identify other factors and interventions to improve performance in bad-performing hospitals is warranted.