Dataset Information

Do hospitalist physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery? A systematic review of process, efficiency and outcome measures.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite more than a decade of research on hospitalists and their performance, disagreement still exists regarding whether and how hospital-based physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery. This systematic review summarizes the findings from 65 comparative evaluations to determine whether hospitalists provide a higher quality of inpatient care relative to traditional inpatient physicians who maintain hospital privileges with concurrent outpatient practices.

Methods

Articles on hospitalist performance published between January 1996 and December 2010 were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and a hand-search of reference lists, key journals and editorials. Comparative evaluations presenting original, quantitative data on processes, efficiency or clinical outcome measures of care between hospitalists, community-based physicians and traditional academic attending physicians were included (n = 65). After proposing a conceptual framework for evaluating inpatient physician performance, major findings on quality are summarized according to their percentage change, direction and statistical significance.

Results

The majority of reviewed articles demonstrated that hospitalists are efficient providers of inpatient care on the basis of reductions in their patients' average length of stay (69%) and total hospital costs (70%); however, the clinical quality of hospitalist care appears to be comparable to that provided by their colleagues. The methodological quality of hospitalist evaluations remains a concern and has not improved over time. Persistent issues include insufficient reporting of source or sample populations (n = 30), patients lost to follow-up (n = 42) and estimates of effect or random variability (n = 35); inappropriate use of statistical tests (n = 55); and failure to adjust for established confounders (n = 37).

Conclusions

Future research should include an expanded focus on the specific structures of care that differentiate hospitalists from other inpatient physician groups as well as the development of better conceptual and statistical models that identify and measure underlying mechanisms driving provider-outcome associations in quality.

SUBMITTER: White HL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3123228 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do hospitalist physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery? A systematic review of process, efficiency and outcome measures.

White Heather L HL Glazier Richard H RH

BMC medicine 20110518

<h4>Background</h4>Despite more than a decade of research on hospitalists and their performance, disagreement still exists regarding whether and how hospital-based physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery. This systematic review summarizes the findings from 65 comparative evaluations to determine whether hospitalists provide a higher quality of inpatient care relative to traditional inpatient physicians who maintain hospital privileges with concurrent outpatient practices.<h4>Me ...[more]

PMID: 21592322

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe postdischarge period is a vulnerable time for patients, with high rates of adverse events that may cause unnecessary readmissions, especially in the elderly. Because postdischarge care continuity is often interrupted after hospitalist care, close follow-up may decrease patient readmission. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of a quality improvement program, integrated postdischarge transitional care (PDTC), in Taiwan's hospitalist system.MethodsFrom December 2009 to May 2010, patients admitted to the hospitalist ward of a medical center in Taiwan and later discharged alive to home care were included. Efforts to improve the quality of interventions in the PDTC program, including a disease-specific care plan, telephone monitoring, hotline counseling and referral to a hospitalist-run clinic, were implemented in the latter four months in the intervention group, while the control group was recruited during the first two months of the study period. The primary end point was unplanned readmission or death within 30 days after discharge.ResultsThere were 94 and 219 patients in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Both groups had similar characteristics at the time of admission and at discharge. In the intervention group, 18 patients with worsening disease-specific indicators recorded during telephone monitoring and 21 patients with new or worsening symptoms recorded during hotline counseling had higher rates of unplanned readmission than those without worsening disease-specific indicators (P = 0.031) and worsening symptoms (P = 0.019), respectively. Patients who received PDTC had lower rates of readmission and death than the control group within 30 days after discharge (15% vs. 25%; P = 0.021). Nonuse of a hospitalist-run clinic and presence of underlying malignancy were other independent risk factors for readmission and death within 30 days after discharge.ConclusionIntegrated PDTC using disease-specific care, telephone monitoring, hotline counseling and a hospitalist-run clinic can reduce rates of postdischarge readmission and death.

Project description:Reporting the results of quality indicators can narrow the gap in the quality of care between hospitals. While most studies rely on outcome indicators, they may not accurately measure the quality of care. Process indicators are not only strongly associated with treatment outcomes, but are also more sensitive to whether patients are treated accurately, enabling timely intervention. Our study aims to investigate whether process indicators provide a more reasonable assessment of hospital quality of care compared to outcome indicators. Data were sourced from the Specific Disease Medical Service Quality Management and Control System in China. A total of 113,942 patients with breast cancer treated in 298 hospitals between January 2019 and April 2023 were included in this retrospective study. The rankability of 11 process indicators was calculated and used as a weight to create a new composite indicator. The composite indicators and outcome measures were compared using the O/E ratio categories. Finally, in order to determine the impact of different years on the results, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using bootstrap sampling. The rankability ( ρ ) values of the eleven process indicators showed significant differences, with the highest ρ value for preoperative cytological or histological examination before surgery (0.919). The ρ value for the outcome indicator was 0.011. The rankability-weighting method yielded a comprehensive score ( ρ = 0.883). The comparison with categorical results of the outcome indicator has different performance classifications for 113 hospitals (37.92%) for composite scores and 140 (46.98%) for preoperative cytological or histological examinationbefore surgery. Process indicators are more suitable than outcome indicators for assessing the quality of breast cancer care in hospitals. Healthcare providers can use process indicators to identify specific areas for improvement, thereby driving continuous quality improvement efforts.

Project description:BackgroundSelecting appropriate outcome measures for vulnerable, multimorbid, older patients with acute and chronic impairments poses specific challenges, which may have caused inconsistent findings of previous intervention trials on early inpatient rehabilitation in acutely hospitalized older patients. The aim of this review was to describe primary outcome measures that have been used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on early rehabilitation in acutely hospitalized older patients, to analyze their matching, and to evaluate the effects of matching on the main findings of these RCTs.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro databases. Additional studies were identified through reference and citation tracking. Inclusion criteria were: RCT, patients aged ≥65 years, admission to an acute hospital medical ward (but not to an intensive medical care unit), physical exercise intervention (also as part of multidisciplinary programs), and primary outcome measure during hospitalization. Two independent reviewers extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality, and analyzed the matching of primary outcome measures to the intervention, study sample, and setting. Main study findings were related to the results of the matching procedure.ResultsTwenty-eight articles reporting on 24 studies were included. A total of 33 different primary outcome measures were identified, which were grouped into six categories: functional status, mobility status, hospital outcomes, adverse clinical events, psychological status, and cognitive functioning. Outcome measures differed considerably within each category and showed a large heterogeneity in their matching to the intervention, study sample, and setting. Outcome measures that specifically matched the intervention contents were more likely to document intervention-induced benefits. Mobility instruments seemed to be the most sensitive outcome measures to reveal such benefits.ConclusionsThis review highlights that the selection of outcome measures has to be highly specific to the intervention contents as this is a key factor to reveal benefits attributable to early rehabilitation in acutely hospitalized older patients. Inappropriate selection of outcome measures may represent a major cause of inconsistent findings reported on the effectiveness of early rehabilitation in this setting.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017063978 .

Dataset Information

Do hospitalist physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery? A systematic review of process, efficiency and outcome measures.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Do hospitalist physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery? A systematic review of process, efficiency and outcome measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets