Dataset Information

Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US hospitals: observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine whether patients admitted to US hospitals that are accredited have better outcomes than those admitted to hospitals reviewed through state surveys, and whether accreditation by The Joint Commission (the largest and most well known accrediting body with an international presence) confers any additional benefits for patients compared with other independent accrediting organizations.

Design

Observational study.

Setting

4400 hospitals in the United States, of which 3337 were accredited (2847 by The Joint Commission) and 1063 underwent state based review between 2014 and 2017.

Participants

4?242?684 patients aged 65 years and older admitted for 15 common medical and six common surgical conditions and survey respondents of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Provider and Systems (HCAHPS).

Main outcome measures

Risk adjusted mortality and readmission rates at 30 days and HCAHPS patient experience scores. Hospital admissions were identified from Medicare inpatient files for 2014, and accreditation information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and The Joint Commission.

Results

Patients treated at accredited hospitals had lower 30 day mortality rates (although not statistically significant lower rates, based on the prespecified P value threshold) than those at hospitals that were reviewed by a state survey agency (10.2% v 10.6%, difference 0.4% (95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.8%), P=0.03), but nearly identical rates of mortality for the six surgical conditions (2.4% v 2.4%, 0.0% (-0.3% to 0.3%), P=0.99). Readmissions for the 15 medical conditions at 30 days were significantly lower at accredited hospitals than at state survey hospitals (22.4% v 23.2%, 0.8% (0.4% to 1.3%), P<0.001) but did not differ for the surgical conditions (15.9% v 15.6%, 0.3% (-1.2% to 1.6%), P=0.75). No statistically significant differences were seen in 30 day mortality or readmission rates (for both the medical or surgical conditions) between hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission and those accredited by other independent organizations. Patient experience scores were modestly better at state survey hospitals than at accredited hospitals (summary star rating 3.4 v 3.2, 0.2 (0.1 to 0.3), P<0.001). Among accredited hospitals, The Joint Commission did not have significantly different patient experience scores compared to other independent organizations (3.1 v 3.2, 0.1 (-0.003 to 0.2), P=0.06).

Conclusions

US hospital accreditation by independent organizations is not associated with lower mortality, and is only slightly associated with reduced readmission rates for the 15 common medical conditions selected in this study. There was no evidence in this study to indicate that patients choosing a hospital accredited by The Joint Commission confer any healthcare benefits over choosing a hospital accredited by another independent accrediting organization.

SUBMITTER: Lam MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6193202 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US hospitals: observational study.

Lam Miranda B MB Figueroa Jose F JF Feyman Yevgeniy Y Reimold Kimberly E KE Orav E John EJ Jha Ashish K AK

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20181018

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether patients admitted to US hospitals that are accredited have better outcomes than those admitted to hospitals reviewed through state surveys, and whether accreditation by The Joint Commission (the largest and most well known accrediting body with an international presence) confers any additional benefits for patients compared with other independent accrediting organizations.<h4>Design</h4>Observational study.<h4>Setting</h4>4400 hospitals in the United State ...[more]

PMID: 30337294

Similar Datasets

Project description:To determine the impact of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program-the US pay for performance program introduced by Medicare to incentivize higher quality care-on 30 day mortality for three incentivized conditions: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia.Observational study.4267 acute care hospitals in the United States: 2919 participated in the HVBP program and 1348 were ineligible and used as controls (44 in general hospitals in Maryland and 1304 critical access hospitals across the United States).2?430?618 patients admitted to US hospitals from 2008 through 2013.30 day risk adjusted mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia using a patient level linear spline analysis to examine the association between the introduction of the HVBP program and 30 day mortality. Non-incentivized, medical conditions were the comparators. A secondary outcome measure was to determine whether the introduction of the HVBP program was particularly beneficial for a subgroup of hospital-poor performers at baseline-that may benefit the most.Mortality rates of incentivized conditions in hospitals participating in the HVBP program declined at -0.13% for each quarter during the preintervention period and -0.03% point difference for each quarter during the post-intervention period. For non-HVBP hospitals, mortality rates declined at -0.14% point difference for each quarter during the preintervention period and -0.01% point difference for each quarter during the post-intervention period. The difference in the mortality trends between the two groups was small and non-significant (difference in difference in trends -0.03% point difference for each quarter, 95% confidence interval -0.08% to 0.13% point difference, P=0.35). In no subgroups of hospitals was HVBP associated with better outcomes, including poor performers at baseline.Evidence that HVBP has led to lower mortality rates is lacking. Nations considering similar pay for performance programs may want to consider alternative models to achieve improved patient outcomes.

Project description:Importance:In the United States, hospitals receive accreditation through unannounced on-site inspections (ie, surveys) by The Joint Commission (TJC), which are high-pressure periods to demonstrate compliance with best practices. No research has addressed whether the potential changes in behavior and heightened vigilance during a TJC survey are associated with changes in patient outcomes. Objective:To assess whether heightened vigilance during survey weeks is associated with improved patient outcomes compared with nonsurvey weeks, particularly in major teaching hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants:Quasi-randomized analysis of Medicare admissions at 1984 surveyed hospitals from calendar year 2008 through 2012 in the period from 3 weeks before to 3 weeks after surveys. Outcomes between surveys and surrounding weeks were compared, adjusting for beneficiaries' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, with subanalyses for major teaching hospitals. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to September 1, 2016. Exposures:Hospitalization during a TJC survey week vs nonsurvey weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were rates of Clostridium difficile infections, in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality, and Patient Safety Indicators (PSI) 90 and PSI 4 measure events. Results:The study sample included 244?787 and 1?462?339 admissions during survey and nonsurvey weeks with similar patient characteristics, reason for admission, and in-hospital procedures across both groups. There were 811?598 (55.5%) women in the nonsurvey weeks (mean [SD] age, 72.84 [14.5] years) and 135?857 (55.5%) in the survey weeks (age, 72.76 [14.5] years). Overall, there was a significant reversible decrease in 30-day mortality for admissions during survey (7.03%) vs nonsurvey weeks (7.21%) (adjusted difference, -0.12%; 95% CI, -0.22% to -0.01%). This observed decrease was larger than 99.5% of mortality changes among 1000 random permutations of hospital survey date combinations, suggesting that observed mortality changes were not attributable to chance alone. Observed mortality reductions were largest in major teaching hospitals, where mortality fell from 6.41% to 5.93% during survey weeks (adjusted difference, -0.38%; 95% CI, -0.74% to -0.03%), a 5.9% relative decrease. We observed no significant differences in admission volume, length of stay, or secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance:Patients admitted to hospitals during TJC survey weeks have significantly lower mortality than during nonsurvey weeks, particularly in major teaching hospitals. These results suggest that changes in practice occurring during periods of surveyor observation may meaningfully affect patient mortality.

Project description:BackgroundTo identify context factors associated with and predicting success in the hospital accreditation process, and to contribute to the understanding of the relative relevance of context factors and their organizational level in the success of QI initiatives.MethodsAnalytical study of cases and controls in a sample of hospitals of medium and high complexity in Colombia. Cases (n = 16) are accredited hospitals by the time of preparation of the study (2016) and controls (n = 38) are similar facilities, which have not succeeded to obtain accreditation. Eligibility criteria for both groups included complexity (medium and high), having emergency services, an official quality assurance license, and being in operation for at least 15 years. Besides eligibility criteria, geographical location, and type of ownership (public/private) are used to select controls to match cases. Context measures are assessed using a survey instrument based on the MUSIQ model ("Model for Understanding Success in Quality") adapted and tested in Colombia. Statistical analysis includes descriptive measures for twenty-three context factors, testing for significant statistical differences between accredited and non-accredited hospitals, and assessing the influence and strength of association of context factors on the probability of success in the accreditation process. A multivariate model assesses the predictive probability of achieving accreditation.ResultsEighteen (78.3%) of the twenty-three context factors are significantly different when comparing cases and controls hospitals, particularly at the Microsystem level; all factors are statistically significant in favor of accredited hospitals. Five context factors are strongly associated to the achievement of accreditation but in the logistic multivariable model, only two of them remain with significant OR, one in the Macrosystem, "Availability of economic resources for QI" (OR: 22.1, p: 0,005), and the other in the Microsystem, "Involvement of physicians" (OR: 4.9, p: 0,04).ConclusionThis study has applied an instrument, based on the MUSIQ model, which allows assessing the relevance of different context factors and their organizational level in hospitals, to explain success in the accreditation process in Colombia. Internal macrosystem and microsystem seem to be more relevant than external environment factors.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether the US News & World Report (USNWR) ranking of the medical school a physician attended is associated with patient outcomes and healthcare spending.DesignObservational study.SettingMedicare, 2011-15.Participants20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older (n=996?212), who were admitted as an emergency to hospital with a medical condition and treated by general internists.Main outcome measuresAssociation between the USNWR ranking of the medical school a physician attended and the physician's patient outcomes (30 day mortality and 30 day readmission rates) and Medicare Part B spending, adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and hospital fixed effects (which effectively compared physicians practicing within the same hospital). A sensitivity analysis employed a natural experiment by focusing on patients treated by hospitalists, because patients are plausibly randomly assigned to hospitalists based on their specific work schedules. Alternative rankings of medical schools based on social mission score or National Institute of Health (NIH) funding were also investigated.Results996?212 admissions treated by 30?322 physicians were examined for the analysis of mortality. When using USNWR primary care rankings, physicians who graduated from higher ranked schools had slightly lower 30 day readmission rates (adjusted rate 15.7% for top 10 schools v 16.1% for schools ranked ?50; adjusted risk difference 0.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 0.8%; P for trend=0.005) and lower spending (adjusted Part B spending $1029 (£790; €881) v $1066; adjusted difference $36, 95% confidence interval $20 to $52; P for trend <0.001) compared with graduates of lower ranked schools, but no difference in 30 day mortality. When using USNWR research rankings, physicians graduating from higher ranked schools had slightly lower healthcare spending than graduates from lower ranked schools, but no differences in patient mortality or readmissions. A sensitivity analysis restricted to patients treated by hospitalists yielded similar findings. Little or no relation was found between alternative rankings (based on social mission score or NIH funding) and patient outcomes or costs of care.ConclusionsOverall, little or no relation was found between the USNWR ranking of the medical school from which a physician graduated and subsequent patient mortality or readmission rates. Physicians who graduated from highly ranked medical schools had slightly lower spending than graduates of lower ranked schools.

Dataset Information

Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US hospitals: observational study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US hospitals: observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets