Search

I'm sitting in the hospital waiting for hospital staff to do a walk test with my father. The goal is to try to send him home if he's able to [...]

Objective: To assess the quantity and impact of research publications among US acute care hospitals; to identify hospital characteristics associated with publication volumes; and to estimate the independent association of bibliometric indicators with Hospital Compare quality measures. Data Sources: Hospital Compare; American Hospital Association Survey; Magnet Recognition Program; Science Citation Index Expanded. Study Design: In cross-sectional studies using a 40% random sample of US Medicare-participating hospitals, we estimated associations of hospital characteristics with publication volumes and associations of hospital-linked bibliometric indicators with 19 Hospital Compare quality metrics. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Using standardized search strategies, we identified all publications attributed to authors from these institutions from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and their subsequent citations through July 2020. Principal Findings: Only 647 of 1604 study hospitals (40.3%) had >1 publication. Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems (COTH) hospitals had significantly more publications (average 599 vs. 11 for non-COTH teaching and 0.6 for nonteaching hospitals), and their publications were cited more frequently (average 22.6/publication) than those from non-COTH teaching (18.2 citations) or nonteaching hospitals (12.8 citations). In multivariable regression, teaching intensity, hospital beds, New England or Pacific region, and not-for-profit or government ownership were significant predictors of higher publication volumes; the percentage of Medicaid admissions was inversely associated. In multivariable linear regression, hospital publications were associated with significantly lower risk-adjusted mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction (coefficient -0.52, p = 0.01), heart failure (coefficient -0.74, p = 0.004), pneumonia (coefficient -1.02, p = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (coefficient -0.48, p = 0.005), and coronary artery bypass surgery (coefficient -0.73, p < 0.0001); higher overall Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) ratings (coefficient 2.37, p = 0.04); and greater patient willingness to recommend (coefficient 3.38, p = 0.01). Conclusions: A minority of US hospitals published in the biomedical literature. Publication quantity and impact indicators are independently associated with lower riskadjusted mortality and higher HCAHPS scores. KEYWORDS outcomes, publications, quality, research What is known on this topic * Although hospital teaching intensity is associated with better outcomes, the association between hospital-based research and outcomes is less well characterized. * Previous studies have primarily focused on clinical trial participation and outcomes. * No large-scale studies in the United States have analyzed the association of hospital-linked publications, a widely accepted research metric, with clinical outcomes while adjusting for multiple potential confounders. What this study adds * A minority of US acute care hospitals are linked to even one publication. When evaluating hospital quality, staff publications are a useful and objective structural metric that may be routinely assessed. * Significant predictors of higher publication volumes include teaching intensity, number of hospital beds, New England or Pacific region, not-for-profit or government ownership, and a lower percentage of Medicaid admissions. * The number and impact (e.g., citations, journal impact factor) of publications attributed to hospital staff are independently associated with Hospital Compare outcomes through a variety of hypothesized direct and indirect mechanisms., 1 | INTRODUCTION Hospitals have many functions, the most fundamental of which is direct patient care. To varying extents, they also educate the next generations of health care providers; they [...]

Efforts focus on eligibility, patient advocacy and finding alternative reimbursement sources to increase recovery, with many seeking help from a revenue cycle partner. To get a finger on the pulse [...]

2023 JUL 8 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- A new study on antimicrobials is now available. According to news reporting [...]

2023 JUL 8 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- Research findings on Information Technology are discussed in a new report. According [...]

2023 JUN 24 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- New study results on radiation therapy have been published. According to news [...]

Objective. The purpose of this review was to identify quality indicators described in the literature that may be used as quality measures in hospital physical therapy units. Methods. The following sources were searched for quality indicators or articles: Web of Science, MEDLINE, IBECS, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Academic Search Complete, SportDiscus, SciELO, PsychINFO, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, and Scopus databases; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Health System Indicator Portal, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development websites; and the National Quality Forum&apos;s measures inventory tool. Search terms included "quality indicator," "quality measure," "physiotherapy," and "physical therapy." Inclusion criteria were articles written in English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese aimed at measuring the quality of care in hospital physical therapy units. Evidence-based indicators with an explicit formula were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and then classified using the structure-process-outcome model, quality domain, and categories defined by a consensus method. Results. Of the 176 articles identified, only 19 met the criteria. From these articles and from the indicator repository searches, 178 clinical care indicators were included in the qualitative synthesis and presented in this paper. Process and outcome measures were prevalent, and 5 out of the 6 quality domains were represented. No efficiency measures were identified. Moreover, structure indicators, equity and accessibility indicators, and indicators in the cardiovascular and circulatory, mental health, pediatrics, and intensive care categories were underrepresented. Conclusions. A broad selection of quality indicators was identified from international resources, which can be used to measure the quality of physical therapy care in hospital units. Impact. This review identified 178 quality of care indicators that can be used in clinical practice monitoring and quality improvement of hospital physical therapy units. The results highlight a lack of accessibility, equity, and efficiency measures for physical therapy units. Keywords: Health Care, Hospital, Hospital Administration, Physical Therapy Department, Practice Management, Quality Assurance, Introduction Quality of care concepts have long been promoted by the seminal works of Avedis Donabedian and other experts in the field, (1-3) but they have not permeated every discipline [...]

Were a jumbo jet to come down in central England, killing all 536 people on board, wall-to-wall media coverage would ensue, together with an air accident investigation into what had [...]

2023 MAY 6 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- Researchers detail new data in clinical research. According to news reporting from [...]

Byline: Kavita. Bhatnagar, Jyoti. Shakrawal Dear Editor, Through the columns of your esteemed journal, we want to bring to your kind attention the approach to glaucoma management during the coronavirus [...]

GILGIL, KENYA * An 11-year legal battle over control of two Kenyan hospitals for the poor is depriving thousands of local residents of critical health services. The unusual dispute over [...]

Objective: To describe the cost of integrating social needs activities into a health care program that works toward health equity by addressing socioeconomic barriers. Data Sources/Study Setting: Costs for a heart failure health care program based in a safety-net hospital were reported by program staff for the program year May 2018April 2019. Additional data sources included hospital records, invoices, and staff survey. Study Design: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, case study of a program that includes health education, outpatient care, financial counseling and free medication; transportation and home services for those most in need; and connections to other social services. Program costs were summarized overall and for mutually exclusive categories: health care program (fixed and variable) and social needs activities. Data Collection: Program cost data were collected using a activity-based, micro-costing approach. In addition, we conducted a survey that was completed by key staff to understand time allocation. Principal Findings: Program costs were approximately $1.33 million, and the annual per patient cost was $1455. Thirty percent of the program costs was for social needs activities: 18% for 30-day supply of medications and addressing socioeconomic barriers to medication adherence, 18% for mobile health services (outpatient home visits), 53% for navigating services through a financial counselor and community health worker, and 12% for transportation to visits and addressing transportation barriers. Most of the program costs were for personnel: 92% of the health care program fixed, 95% of the health care program variable, and 78% of social needs activities. Discussion: Historically, social and health care services are funded by different systems and have not been integrated. We estimate the cost of implementing social needs activities into a health care program. This work can inform implementation for hospitals attempting to address social determinants of health and social needs in their patient population. KEYWORDS costs and cost analysis, evaluation study, health equity, hospitals, social determinants of health, uninsured/safety net providers, 1 INTRODUCTION In the United States, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most prevalent chronic health problem and the leading cause of mortality among adults in 2016. (1) CVD is estimated [...]

Background: The Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) is a pay for performance system that impacts traditional Medicare fee-for-service payments to hospitals through rewards and penalties. Objectives: To explore variation in overall and individual-hospital total performance score (TPS) and embedded domains for hospitals during 2014-2018. Data Source: Hospital data were retrieved from the publicly available HOSArchive dataset. Study Design: Distribution of annual TPS and HVBP domain scores for 2014-2018 was evaluated using descriptive statistics. Transitional probabilities were analyzed to evaluate annual movement in the TPS ranking for outlier hospitals in the Top and Bottom 5%. Principal Findings: TPS scores are positively skewed while the distribution of domain scores vary with patient experience, (clinical) outcome, and efficiency domains having a large number of (positive) outliers. Mean TPS score decreased from 40.54 in 2014 to 38.04 by 2018. Improvement was shown in mean domain scores for clinical process of care and clinical outcome using 95% confidence intervals, with hospitals gaining 10 points over the study period in clinical outcome. Changes in the mean scores for other domains did not show consistent increases or decreases. Chi-square analyses of hospital ranking categories showed some evidence that, as a group, hospitals initially ranked in the Bottom 5% are making consistent annual movements to higher categories. In contrast, over half of the hospitals ranking in the initial Top 5% remained in the top category across all study years. Conclusions: It may be time for CMS to redesign the HVBP incentive program to assure the measures accurately demonstrate sustained improvement, the domain weights appropriately reflect the level of importance, and the TPS comparative ranking methodology does not discourage lower-performing hospitals from actively improving the care they deliver and achieving top ranks. KEYWORDS Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program, incentive payment, total performance score, 1 INTRODUCTION The Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) is a pay for performance program that impacts traditional Medicare fee-for-service payments to hospitals through rewards and penalties. The intent is to [...]

Objective: Building on the original taxonomy of hospital-based health systems from 20 years ago, we develop a new taxonomy to inform emerging public policy and practice developments. Data Sources: The 2016 American Hospital Association's (AHA) Annual Survey; the 2016 IQVIA Healthcare Organizations and Systems (HCOS) database; and the 20172018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS). Study Design: Cluster analysis of the 2016 AHA Annual Survey data to derive measures of differentiation, centralization, and integration to create categories or types of hospital-based health systems. Data Collection: Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation generating the factors used in the cluster algorithms. Principal Findings: Among the four cluster types, 54% (N = 202) of systems are decentralized (-0.35) and relatively less differentiated (-0.37); 23% of systems (N = 85) are highly differentiated (1.28) but relatively decentralized (-0.29); 15% (N = 57) are highly centralized (2.04) and highly differentiated (0.65); and approximately 9 percent (N = 33) are least differentiated (-1.35) and most decentralized (-0.64). Despite differences in calculation, the Highly Centralized, Highly Differentiated System Cluster and the Undifferentiated, Decentralized System Cluster were similar to those identified 20 years ago. The other two system clusters contained similarities as well as differences from those 20 years ago. Overall, 82 percent of the systems remain relatively decentralized suggesting they operate largely as holding companies allowing autonomy to individual hospitals operating within the system. Conclusions: The new taxonomy of hospital-based health systems bears similarities as well as differences from 20 years ago. Important applications of the taxonomy for addressing current challenges facing the healthcare system, such as the transition to value-based payment models, continued consolidation, and the growing importance of the social determinants of health, are highlighted. KEYWORDS centralization, cluster analysis, differentiation, healthcare systems, integration, 1 INTRODUCTION The health care sector is undergoing an unprecedented period of change. This is reflected in the horizontal and vertical consolidation of hospitals, health systems, and physician organizations, an [...]

Britain has 2.3 hospital beds per 1,000 people, compared with 5.7 in France, and 7.8 in Germany. So in the middle of what is perhaps the worst winter in the [...]

2023 JAN 21 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- New research on antimicrobial resistance is the subject of a new report. [...]

2022 DEC 17 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- Investigators discuss new findings in Obesity, Fitness and Wellness. According to news [...]

2022 NOV 26 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- Current study results on Opioids have been published. According to news originating [...]

Byline: Mari Devereaux And Alex Kacik Health systems are increasingly investing in acute hospital-at-home technology to ease overburdened hospitals, reduce costs and improve outcomes. By equipping patients' homes with biometric [...]

Byline: Kevin Oklobzija Rural hospitals will lose millions of dollars in critical federal funding and residents will be at risk for reduced medical services if two government programs are allowed [...]

2022 SEP 17 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- Research findings on Oncology - Liver Cancer are discussed in a new [...]

Objective. The COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly evolving and has led to increased numbers of hospitalizations worldwide. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 experience a variety of symptoms, including fever, muscle pain, tiredness, cough, and difficulty breathing. Elderly people and those with underlying health conditions are considered to be more at risk of developing severe symptoms and have a higher risk of physical deconditioning during their hospital stay. Physical therapists have an important role in supporting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 but also need to be aware of challenges when treating these patients. In line with international initiatives, this article aims to provide guidance and detailed recommendations for hospital-based physical therapists managing patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through a national approach in the Netherlands. Methods. A pragmatic approach was used. A working group conducted a purposive scan ofthe literature and drafted initial recommendations based on the knowledge ofsymptoms in patients with COVID-19 and current practice for physical therapist management for patients hospitalized with lung disease and patients admitted to the intensive care unit. An expert group of hospital-based physical therapists in the Netherlands provided feedback on the recommendations, which were finalized when consensus was reached among the members of the working group. Results. The recommendations include safety recommendations, treatment recommendations, discharge recommendations, and staffing recommendations. Treatment recommendations address 2 phases of hospitalization: when patients are critically ill and admitted to the intensive care unit, and when patients are severely ill and admitted to the COVID ward. Physical therapist management for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 comprises elements of respiratory support and active mobilization. Respiratory support includes breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, airway clearance techniques, and respiratory muscle strength training. Recommendations toward active mobilization include bed mobility activities, active range-of-motion exercises, active (assisted) limb exercises, activities-of-daily-living training, transfer training, cycle ergometer, pre-gait exercises, and ambulation., As of publication date, the number of patients with respiratory syndrome caused by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is still increasing rapidly worldwide. Spreading [...]

Healthcare is on the verge of a new era of price transparency and a value revolution for providers, health plans and patients. On Nov. 15, 2019, the Department of Health [...]

Byline: Lauren Berryman Blanche Coop% never realized how vital her role as a hospital-based notary public would become until the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020. Although the service may seem [...]

2022 MAR 26 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week -- Data detailed on Cancer have been presented. According to news originating from [...]