Organizational Factors Affect Safety-Net Hospitals' Breast Cancer Treatment Rates.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bickell NA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5682131 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Organizational Factors Affect Safety-Net Hospitals' Breast Cancer Treatment Rates.
Bickell Nina A NA Moss Alexandra DeNardis AD Castaldi Maria M Shah Ajay A Sickles Alan A Pappas Peter P Lewis Theophilus T Kemeny Margaret M Arora Shalini S Schleicher Lori L Fei Kezhen K Franco Rebeca R McAlearney Ann Scheck AS
Health services research 20161114 6
<h4>Objective</h4>To identify key organizational approaches associated with underuse of breast cancer care.<h4>Setting</h4>Nine New York City area safety-net hospitals.<h4>Study design</h4>Mixed qualitative-quantitative, cross-sectional cohort.<h4>Methods</h4>We used qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of key stakeholder interviews, defined organizational "conditions," calibrated conditions, and identified solution pathways. We defined underuse as no radiation after lumpectomy in women <75 ye ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare hospital-community partnerships among safety-net hospitals relative to non-safety-net hospitals, and explore whether hospital-community partnerships are associated with reductions in readmission rates.Data sourcesData from four nationwide hospital-level datasets for 2015-2016, including American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey, Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) data, CMS Hospital Compare, and County Health Rankings National (CHRN) data.Study designWe first examined how safety-net hospitals partner with nine different community providers, and how the overall and individual partnership patterns differ from those in non-safety-net hospitals. We then explored their association with 30-day readmission rates by diagnosis and hospital wide.Data collection/extraction methodsWe included 1979 hospitals across 50 US states.Principal findingsSafety-net hospitals were more engaged in hospital-community partnerships, especially with local public health, local governments, social services, nonprofits, and insurance companies, relative to their non-safety-net peers. However, we found that such partnerships were not significantly related to reductions in readmission rates. The findings indicated that merely partnering with various community organizations may not be associated with readmission rate reduction.ConclusionsBefore promoting partnerships with various community organizations for its own sake, further prospective, longitudinal, and evidence-based guidance derived from the study of hospital-community partnerships is needed to make meaningful recommendations aimed at readmission rate reduction in safety-net hospitals.
| S-EPMC7376002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSafety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals.ResultsPatients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease.ConclusionThis analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.
| S-EPMC8614240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo implement and test a Web-based tracking and feedback (T&F) tool to close referral loops and reduce adjuvant breast cancer treatment underuse in safety-net hospitals (SNHs).Patient and methodsWe randomly assigned 10 SNHs, identified patients with new stage 1 to stage 3 breast cancer, assessed their connection with the oncologist, and relayed this information to surgeons for follow-up. We interviewed key informants about the tool's usefulness. We conducted intention-to-treat and pre- and poststudy analyses to assess the T&F tool and implementation effectiveness, respectively.ResultsBetween the study start and intervention implementation, several hospitals reorganized care delivery and 49% of patients scheduled to undergo breast cancer surgery were ineligible because they already were in contact with an oncologist. One high-volume hospital closed. Despite randomization of hospitals, intervention (INT) hospitals had fewer white patients (5% v 16%; P = .0005), and more underuse (28% v 15%; P = .002) compared with usual care (UC) hospitals. Over time, INT hospitals with poorer follow-up significantly reduced underuse compared with UC hospitals (INT hospitals, from 33% to 9%, P = .001 v UC hospitals, from 15% to 11%, P = .5). There was no difference in underuse (9% at INT hospitals, 11% at UC hospitals; P = .8). Hospitals with better follow-up (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98) had less underuse. In settings with poor follow-up and tracking approaches, key informants found the tool useful. The rapidly changing delivery landscape posed significant challenges to this implementation research.ConclusionA T&F tool did not significantly reduce adjuvant underuse but may help reduce underuse in SNHs with poor follow-up capabilities. Inability to discern T&F effectiveness is likely due to encountered challenges that inform lessons for future implementation research.
| S-EPMC6550054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn the US, federal value-based incentive programs are more likely to penalize safety-net institutions than non-safety-net institutions. Whether these programs differentially change the rates of targeted health care-associated infections in safety-net vs non-safety-net hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) implementation with changes in rates of targeted health care-associated infections and disparities in rates among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis interrupted time series included all US acute care hospitals enrolled in the Preventing Avoidable Infectious Complications by Adjusting Payment study that participated in mandatory reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the 2015 American Hospital Association annual survey. Penalty statuses for 2015 to 2018 were obtained from Hospital Compare. Data were analyzed between July 9, 2018, and October 1, 2019.ExposuresHACRP and HVBP implementation in fiscal year 2015 or 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were rates of 4 health care-associated infections: central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), surgical site infection (SSI) after colon surgical procedures, and SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedures. Regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess the association of HACRP and HVBP implementation with health care-associated infection rates and disparities in infection rates.ResultsOf the 618 acute care hospitals included in this study, 473 (76.5%) were non-safety net and 145 (23.5%) were considered safety net. In these hospitals, HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with improvements in level or trend for any health care-associated infection examined (eg, CAUTI in safety-net hospitals: incidence rate ratio [IRR] for level change, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.79-1.23; P = .89]; IRR for change in slope, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .80]). Before program implementation, infection rates were statistically significantly higher for safety-net than for non-safety-net hospitals for CLABSI (IRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42; P = .004), CAUTI (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P < .001), and SSI after colon surgical procedure (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50; P = .009). The disparity persisted over time when comparing the last year of the study with the first year (CLABSI: ratio of ratios [ROR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .48]; CAUTI: ROR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .31]; SSI after colon surgical procedures: ROR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20; P = .75]). Rates of SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedure were similar in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals before implementation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40; P = .27) but higher after implementation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.83; P = .006), although this change was not significant (ROR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59; P = .20).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with any improvements in targeted health care-associated infections among safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals or with changes in disparities in infection rates. Given the persistent health care-associated infection rate disparities, these programs appear to function as a disproportionate penalty system for safety-net hospitals that offer no measurable benefits for patients.
| S-EPMC7344380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough readmission rates are declining under Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), concerns remain that the HRRP will harm quality at safety-net hospitals because they are penalized more often. Disparities between white and black patients might widen because more black patients receive care at safety-net hospitals. Disparities may be particularly worse for clinical conditions not targeted by the HRRP because hospitals might reallocate resources toward targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure) at the expense of nontargeted conditions.ObjectiveTo examine disparities in readmission rates between white and black patients discharged from safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP began, evaluating discharges for any clinical condition and the subsets of targeted and nontargeted conditions.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study conducting quasi-experimental analyses of patient hospital discharges for any clinical condition among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 to 2015 after controlling for patient and hospital characteristics. Changes in disparities were measured within safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP penalties were enforced and compared with prior trends. These analyses were then stratified by targeted and nontargeted conditions. Analyses were conducted from October 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresTrends in 30-day readmission rates among white and black patients by quarter and differences in trends across periods.ResultsThe study sample included 58 237 056 patient discharges (black patients, 9.8%; female, 57.7%; mean age [SD] age, 78.8 [7.9] years; nontargeted conditions, 50 372 806 [86.5%]). Within safety-net hospitals, disparities in readmission rates for all clinical conditions widened between black and white patients by 0.04 percentage point per quarter in the HRRP penalty period (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07; P = .01). This widening was driven by nontargeted conditions (0.05 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.08]; P = .006), whereas disparities for the HRRP-targeted conditions did not change (with an increase of 0.01 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10]; P = .74). Within non-safety-net hospitals, racial disparities remained stable in the HRRP penalty period across all conditions, whether the conditions were HRRP-targeted or nontargeted.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this study suggest that disparities are widening within safety-net hospitals, specifically for non-HRRP-targeted conditions. Although increases in racial disparities for nontargeted conditions were modest, they represent 6 times more discharges in our cohort than targeted conditions.
| S-EPMC6324411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Length of hospital stay (LOS) for hip fracture treatments is associated with mortality. In addition to patient demographic and clinical factors, hospital and payer type may also influence LOS, and thus mortality, among hip fracture patients; accordingly, outcome disparities between groups may arise from where patients are treated and from their health insurance type. The purpose of this study was to examine if where hip fracture patients are treated and how they pay for their care is associated with outcome disparities between patient groups. Specifically, we examined whether LOS differed between patients treated at safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals and whether LOS was associated with patients' insurance type within each hospital category. METHODS:A sample of 48,948 hip fracture patients was extracted from New York State's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), 2014-2016. Using means comparison and X2 tests, differences between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals on LOS and patient characteristics were examined. Relationships between LOS and hospital category (safety-net or non-safety-net) and LOS and insurance type were further evaluated through negative binomial regression models. RESULTS:LOS was statistically (p???0.001) longer in safety-net hospitals (7.37?days) relative to non-safety-net hospitals (6.34?days). Treatment in a safety-net hospital was associated with a LOS that was 11.7% (p =?0.003) longer than in a non-safety-net hospital. Having Medicaid was associated with a longer LOS relative to having commercial health insurance. CONCLUSION:Where hip fracture patients are treated is associated with LOS and may influence outcome disparities between groups. Future research should examine whether outcome differences between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals are associated with resource availability and hospital payer mix.
| S-EPMC7011469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceA high proportion of underserved patients with cirrhosis receive care at safety-net hospitals (SNHs). While liver transplant (LT) can be a life-saving treatment for cirrhosis, data on referral patterns from SNHs to LT centers are lacking.ObjectiveTo identify factors associated with LT referral within the SNH context.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 521 adult patients with cirrhosis and model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) scores of 15 or greater. Participants received outpatient hepatology care at 3 SNHs between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, with end of follow-up on May 1, 2022.ExposuresPatient demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and liver disease factors.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was referral for LT. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors associated with LT referral. Multiple chained imputation was used to address missing values.ResultsOf 521 patients, 365 (70.1%) were men, the median age was 60 (IQR, 52-66) years, most (311 [59.7%]) were Hispanic or Latinx, 338 (64.9%) had Medicaid insurance, and 427 (82.0%) had a history of alcohol use (127 [24.4%] current vs 300 [57.6%] prior). The most common liver disease etiology was alcohol associated liver disease (280 [53.7%]), followed by hepatitis C virus infection (141 [27.1%]). Median MELD-Na score was 19 (IQR, 16-22). One hundred forty-five patients (27.8%) were referred for LT. Of these, 51 (35.2%) were wait-listed, and 28 (19.3%) underwent LT. In a multivariable model, male sex (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.31-0.81]), Black race vs Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity (AOR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04-0.89]), uninsured status (AOR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18-0.89]), and hospital site (AOR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18-0.87]) were associated with lower odds of being referred. Reasons for not being referred (n = 376) included active alcohol use and/or limited sobriety (123 [32.7%]), insurance issues (80 [21.3%]), lack of social support (15 [4.0%]), undocumented status (7 [1.9%]), and unstable housing (6 [1.6%]).ConclusionsIn this cohort study of SNHs, less than one-third of patients with cirrhosis and MELD-Na scores of 15 or greater were referred for LT. The identified sociodemographic factors negatively associated with LT referral highlight potential intervention targets and opportunities to standardize LT referral practices to increase access to life-saving transplant among underserved patients.
| S-EPMC10251211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMedical patients discharged from safety-net hospitals (SNHs) experience higher readmission rates compared with those discharged from non-SNHs. However, little is known about whether this association persists for surgical patients.ObjectivesTo examine differences in readmission rates between SNHs and non-SNHs among surgical patients after discharge and determine whether hospital characteristics might account for some of the variation.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational retrospective study linked the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014, for 4 states (New York, Florida, Iowa, and Washington) with data from the 2014 American Hospital Association annual survey. After identifying surgical discharges, SNHs were defined as those with the top quartile of inpatient stays paid by Medicaid or self-paid. Hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) for surgical discharges were calculated. The association between hospital RSRRs and hospital characteristics was evaluated with bivariate analyses. An estimated multivariable hierarchical linear regression model was used to examine variation in hospital RSRRs, adjusting for hospital characteristics, state, year, and SNH status. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2017, through March 1, 2018.ExposuresSurgical care at an SNH.Main outcomes and measuresReadmission after an index surgical admission.ResultsA total of 1 252 505 patients across all 4 years and states were included in the analysis (51.7% women; mean [SD] age, 52.7 [18.1] years). Bivariate analyses found that SNHs had higher mean (SD) surgical RSRRs compared with non-SNHs; significant differences were found for New York (9.6 [0.1] vs 10.9 [0.1]; P < .001) and Florida (11.6 [0.1] vs 12.1 [0.1]; P = .001). The SNHs also had higher RSRRs in these 2 states when stratified by hospital funding (nonfederal government SNHs in New York, 11.9 [0.2]; for-profit, private SNHs in Florida, 13.1 [0.2]; P < .001 for both); however, bed size was a significant factor for higher mean (SD) RSRRs only for New York (200 to 399 beds, 12.0 [0.4]; P = .006). Similar results were found for multivariable linear regression models; RSRRs were 1.02% higher for SNHs compared with non-SNHs (95% CI, 0.75%-1.29%; P < .001). Increased RSRRs were observed for hospitals in New York and Florida, teaching hospitals, and investor-owned hospitals. Factors associated with reduced RSRRs included presence of an ambulatory surgery center, cardiac catheterization capabilities, and high surgical volume.Conclusions and relevanceAccording to results of this study, surgical patients treated at SNHs experienced slightly higher RSRRs compared with those treated at non-SNHs. This association persisted after adjusting for year, state, and hospital factors, including teaching status, hospital bed size, and hospital volume.
| S-EPMC6537916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare trends in readmission rates among safety net and non-safety net hospitals under the US Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP).DesignA retrospective time series analysis using Medicare administrative claims data from January 2008 to June 2015.SettingWe examined 3254 US hospitals eligible for penalties under the HRRP, categorised as safety net or non-safety net hospitals based on the hospital's proportion of patients with low socioeconomic status.ParticipantsAdmissions for Medicare fee-for-service patients, age ≥65 years, discharged alive, who had a valid five-digit zip code and did not have a principal discharge diagnosis of cancer or psychiatric illness were included, for a total of 52 516 213 index admissions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMean hospital-level, all-condition, 30-day risk-adjusted standardised unplanned readmission rate, measured quarterly, along with quarterly rate of change, and an interrupted time series examining: April-June 2010, after HRRP was passed, and October-December 2012, after HRRP penalties were implemented.Results58.0% (SD 15.3) of safety net hospitals and 17.1% (SD 10.4) of non-safety net hospitals' patients were in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic status. The mean safety net hospital standardised readmission rate declined from 17.0% (SD 3.7) to 13.6% (SD 3.6), whereas the mean non-safety net hospital declined from 15.4% (SD 3.0) to 12.7% (SD 2.5). The absolute difference in rates between safety net and non-safety net hospitals declined from 1.6% (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9) to 0.9% (0.7 to 1.2). The quarterly decline in standardised readmission rates was 0.03 percentage points (95% CI 0.03 to 0.02, p<0.001) greater among safety net hospitals over the entire study period, and no differential change among safety net and non-safety net hospitals was found after either HRRP was passed or penalties enacted.ConclusionsSince HRRP was passed and penalties implemented, readmission rates for safety net hospitals have decreased more rapidly than those for non-safety net hospitals.
| S-EPMC5541519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of provider incentive policy on smoking status documentation.Data sourcesPrimary data were extracted from structured electronic medical records (EMRs) from 15 community health centers (CHCs).Study designThis was an observational study of data from 2006 to 2013, assessing changes in documentation of smoking status over time.Data extraction methodsWe extracted structured EMR data for patients age 18 and older with at least one primary care visit.Principal findingsRates of documented smoking status rose from 30 percent in 2006 to 90 percent in 2013; the largest increase occurred from 2011 to 2012 following policy changes (21.3% [95% CI, 8.2%, 34.4%] from the overall trend). Rates varied by clinic and across patient subgroups.ConclusionsDocumentation of smoking status improved markedly after introduction of new federal standards. Further improvement in documentation is still needed, especially for males, nonwhite patients, those using opioids, and HIV + patients. More research is needed to study whether changes in documentation lead to improvements in counseling, cessation, and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC7080378 | biostudies-literature