Dataset Information

Risk-Adjusted Variation of Publicly Reported Emergency Department Timeliness Measures.

ABSTRACT: STUDY OBJECTIVE:The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published emergency department (ED) timeliness measures. These data show substantial variation in hospital performance and suggest the need for process improvement initiatives. However, the CMS measures are not risk adjusted and may provide misleading information about hospital performance and variation. We hypothesize that substantial hospital-level variation will persist after risk adjustment. METHODS:This cross-sectional study included hospitals that participated in the Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance and CMS ED measure reporting in 2012. Outcomes included the CMS measures corresponding to median annual boarding time, length of stay of admitted patients, length of stay of discharged patients, and waiting time of discharged patients. Covariates included hospital structural characteristics and case-mix information from the American Hospital Association Survey, CMS cost reports, and the Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance. We used a ? regression with a log link to model the skewed outcomes. We used indirect standardization to create risk-adjusted measures. We defined "substantial" variation as coefficient of variation greater than 0.15. RESULTS:The study cohort included 723 hospitals. Risk-adjusted performance on the CMS measures varied substantially across hospitals, with coefficient of variation greater than 0.15 for all measures. Ratios between the 10th and 90th percentiles of performance ranged from 1.5-fold for length of stay of discharged patients to 3-fold for waiting time of discharged patients. CONCLUSION:Policy-relevant variations in publicly reported CMS ED timeliness measures persist after risk adjustment for nonmodifiable hospital and case-mix characteristics. Future "positive deviance" studies should identify modifiable process measures associated with high performance.

SUBMITTER: Sun BC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4690810 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk-Adjusted Variation of Publicly Reported Emergency Department Timeliness Measures.

Sun Benjamin C BC Laurie Amber A Prewitt Lela L Fu Rongwei R Chang Anna M AM Augustine James J Reese Charles C McConnell K John KJ

Annals of emergency medicine 20150624 4

<h4>Study objective</h4>The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently published emergency department (ED) timeliness measures. These data show substantial variation in hospital performance and suggest the need for process improvement initiatives. However, the CMS measures are not risk adjusted and may provide misleading information about hospital performance and variation. We hypothesize that substantial hospital-level variation will persist after risk adjustment.<h4>Methods</h4>Th ...[more]

PMID: 26116220

Similar Datasets

Project description:Public reporting of quality is considered a key strategy for stimulating improvement efforts at US hospitals; however, little is known about the attitudes of hospital leaders toward existing quality measures.To describe US hospital leaders' attitudes toward hospital quality measures found on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare website, assess use of these measures for quality improvement, and examine the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital quality performance.We mailed a 21-item questionnaire from January 1 through September 31, 2012, to senior hospital leaders from a stratified random sample of 630 US hospitals, including equal numbers with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected performance on mortality and readmission measures.We assessed levels of agreement with statements concerning quality measures, examined use of measures for improvement activities, and analyzed the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital performance.Of 630 hospitals surveyed, 380 (60.3%) responded. For each of the mortality, readmission, process, and patient experience measures, more than 70% of hospitals agreed with the statement that "public reporting stimulates quality improvement activity at my institution"; agreement for measures of cost and volume was 65.2% and 53.3%, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for the statement that "our hospital is able to influence performance on this measure"; agreement for processes of care and patient experience measures was 96.4% and 94.2%, respectively. A total of 89.7% of hospitals agreed that the hospital's reputation was influenced by patient experience measures; agreement was 77.4% for mortality, 69.9% for readmission, 76.3% for process measures, 66.1% for cost measures, and 54.0% for volume measures. A total of 87.1% of hospitals reported incorporating performance on publicly reported measures into their hospital's annual goals, whereas 90.2% reported regularly reviewing the results with the hospital's board of trustees and 94.3% with senior clinical and administrative leaders. When compared with chief executive officers and chief medical officers, respondents who identified themselves as chief quality officers or vice presidents of quality were less likely to agree that public reporting stimulates quality improvement and that measured differences are large enough to differentiate among hospitals.Hospital leaders indicated that the measures reported on the Hospital Compare website exert strong influence over local planning and improvement efforts. However, they expressed concerns about the clinical meaningfulness, unintended consequences, and methods of public reporting.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if increases in hospital discharge prices are associated with improvements in clinical quality or patient experience.Data sourcesThis study used Medicare cost report data and publicly available Medicare.gov Care Compare quality measures for approximately 3000 short-term care general hospitals between 2011 and 2018.Study designWe separately regressed quality measure scores on a lag of case mix adjusted discharge price, hospital fixed effects, and year indicators. Clinical quality measures included 30-day readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, hip and knee replacement, and pneumonia; risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and stroke; and 90-day complication rate for hip and knee replacement. Patient experience measures included the summary star rating and 10 domain measures reported through the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. We tested for heterogeneous effects by hospital ownership, number of beds, the commercial share of overall discharges, and market concentration.Data collection/extraction methodsWe linked hospitals identified in Medicare cost reports to Medicare.gov Care Compare quality measures. We excluded hospitals for which we could not identify a discharge price or that had an unrealistic price.Principal findingsThere was no positive association between lagged discharge price and any clinical quality measure. For patient experience measures, a 2% increase in discharge price was not associated with overall patient satisfaction but was associated with small, statistically significant increases ranging from 0.01% to 0.02% (relative to mean scores) for seven of ten domain measures. There was a positive association for five of ten patient experience measures in competitive markets and one measure in both moderately concentrated and heavily concentrated markets.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that hospitals use higher prices to make investments in clinical quality; patient experience improved, but only negligibly.

Project description:BackgroundHospital leaders play an important role in the success of quality improvement (QI) initiatives, yet little is known about how leaders engaged in QI currently view quality performance measures. In a follow-up to a quantitative study conducted in 2012, a study employing qualitative content analysis was conducted to (1) describe leaders' opinions about the quality measures reported on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare website, (2) to generate hypotheses about barriers/facilitators to improving hospitals' performance, and (3) to elicit recommendations about how to improve publicly reported quality measures.MethodsThe opinions of leaders from a stratified sample of 630 hospitals across the United States regarding quality measures were assessed with an open-ended prompt that was part of a 21-item questionnaire about quality measures publicly reported by CMS. Their responses were qualitatively analyzed in an iterative process, resulting in the identification of the presence and frequency of major themes and subthemes.ResultsParticipants from 131 (21%) of the 630 hospitals surveyed replied to the open-ended prompt; 15% were from hospitals with higher-than-average performance scores, and 52% were from hospitals with lower-than-average scores. Major themes included (1) concerns regarding quality measurement (measure validity, importance, and fairness) and/or public reporting; 76%); (2) positive views of quality measurement (stimulate improvement, focus efforts; 13%); and (3) recommendations for improving quality measurement.ConclusionsAmong hospital leaders responding to an open-ended survey prompt, some supported the concept of measuring quality, but the majority criticized the validity and utility of current quality measures. Although quality measures are frequently being reevaluated and new measures developed, the ability of such measures to stimulate improvement may be limited without greater buy-in from hospital leaders.

Dataset Information

Risk-Adjusted Variation of Publicly Reported Emergency Department Timeliness Measures.

Publications

Risk-Adjusted Variation of Publicly Reported Emergency Department Timeliness Measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets