Search

Purpose: The possible benefit that hospital teaching status may confer in the care of patients with cardiovascular disease is unknown. Our purpose was to determine the effect of hospital teaching status on in-hospital mortality, use of invasive procedures, length of stay, and charges in patients with myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stroke., Subjects and Methods: We analyzed a New York State hospital administrative database containing information on 388 964 consecutive patients who had been admitted with heart failure (n = 173 799), myocardial infarction (n = 121 209), or stroke (n = 93 956) from 1993 to 1995. We classified the 248 participating acute care hospitals by teaching status (major, minor, nonteaching). The primary outcomes were standardized in-hospital mortality ratios, defined as the ratio of observed to predicted mortality., Results: Standardized in-hospital mortality ratios were significantly lower in major teaching hospitals (0.976 for heart failure, 0.945 for myocardial infarction, 0.958 for stroke) than in nonteaching hospitals (1.01 for heart failure, 1.01 for myocardial infarction, 0.995 for stroke). Standardized in-hospital mortality ratios were significantly higher for patients with stroke (1.06) but not heart failure (1.0) or myocardial infarction (1.06) in minor teaching hospitals than in nonteaching hospitals. Compared with nonteaching hospitals, use of invasive cardiac procedures and adjusted hospital charges were significantly greater in major and minor teaching hospitals for all three conditions. The adjusted length of stay was also shorter for myocardial infarction in major teaching hospitals and longer for stroke in minor teaching hospitals., Conclusion: Major teaching hospital status was an important determinant of outcomes in patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stroke in New York State.

Objectives: Comparative analysis of hospital outcomes requires reliable adjustment for casemix. Although congestive heart failure is one of the most common indications for hospitalization, congestive heart failure casemix adjustment has not been widely studied. The purposes of this study were (1) to describe and validate a new congestive heart failure-specific casemix adjustment index to predict in-hospital mortality and (2) to compare its performance to the Charlson comorbidity index., Methods: Data from all 4,608 admissions to the Massachusetts General Hospital from January 1990 to July 1996 with a principal ICD-9-CM discharge diagnosis of congestive heart failure were evaluated. Massachusetts General Hospital patients were randomly divided in a derivation and a validation set. By logistic regression, odds ratios for in-hospital death were computed and weights were assigned to construct a new predictive index in the derivation set. The performance of the index was tested in an internal Massachusetts General Hospital validation set and in a non-Massachusetts General Hospital external validation set incorporating data from all 1995 New York state hospital discharges with a primary discharge diagnosis of congestive heart failure., Results: Overall in-hospital mortality was 6.4%. Based on the new index, patients were assigned to six categories with incrementally increasing hospital mortality rates ranging from 0.5% to 31%. By logistic regression, "c" statistics of the congestive heart failure-specific index (0.83 and 0.78, derivation and validation set) were significantly superior to the Charlson index (0.66). Similar incrementally increasing hospital mortality rates were observed in the New York database with the congestive heart failure-specific index ("c" statistics 0.75)., Conclusion: In an administrative database, this congestive heart failure-specific index may be a more adequate casemix adjustment tool to predict hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for congestive heart failure.