Dataset Information

Sepsis quality in safety-net hospitals: An analysis of Medicare's SEP-1 performance measure.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:Newly enacted policies at the state and federal level in the United States require acute care hospitals to engage in sepsis quality improvement. However, responding to these policies requires considerable resources and may disproportionately burden safety-net hospitals. To better understand this issue, we analyzed the relationship between hospital safety-net status and performance on Medicare's SEP-1 quality measure.

Materials and methods:We linked multiple publicly-available datasets with information on SEP-1 performance, structural hospital characteristics, hospital financial case mix, and health system affiliation. We analyzed the relationship between hospital safety-net status and SEP-1 performance, as well as whether hospital characteristics moderated that relationship.

Results:We analyzed data from 2827 hospitals, defining safety-net hospitals using financial case mix data. The 703 safety-net hospitals performed worse on Medicare's SEP-1 quality measure (adjusted difference 2.3% compliance, 95% CI -4.0%--0.6%). This association was most evident in hospitals not affiliated with health systems, in which the difference between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals was 6.8% compliance (95% CI -10.4%--3.3%).

Conclusions:Existing sepsis policies may harm safety-net hospitals and widen health disparities. Our findings suggest that strategies to promote collaboration among hospitals may be an avenue for sepsis performance improvement in safety-net hospitals.

SUBMITTER: Barbash IJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6901718 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sepsis quality in safety-net hospitals: An analysis of Medicare's SEP-1 performance measure.

Barbash Ian J IJ Kahn Jeremy M JM

Journal of critical care 20190805

<h4>Purpose</h4>Newly enacted policies at the state and federal level in the United States require acute care hospitals to engage in sepsis quality improvement. However, responding to these policies requires considerable resources and may disproportionately burden safety-net hospitals. To better understand this issue, we analyzed the relationship between hospital safety-net status and performance on Medicare's SEP-1 quality measure.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We linked multiple publicly-availa ...[more]

PMID: 31400737

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in March 2010, introduced payment-reduction penalties on acute care hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia. There is concern that hospitals serving large numbers of low-income and uninsured patients (safety-net hospitals) are at greater risk of higher readmissions and penalties, often due to factors that are likely outside the hospital's control. Using publicly reported data, we compared the readmissions performance and penalty experience among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.MethodsWe used nationwide hospital level data for 2009-2016 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare program, CMS Final Impact Rule, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We identified as safety-net hospitals the top quartile of hospitals in terms of the proportion of patients receiving income-based public benefits. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach based on the comparison of pre- vs. post-HRRP changes in (risk-adjusted) 30-day readmission rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals, we estimated the change in readmissions rate associated with HRRP. We also compared the penalty frequency among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.ResultsOur study cohort included 1915 hospitals, of which 479 were safety-net hospitals. At baseline (2009), safety-net hospitals had a slightly higher readmission rate compared to non-safety net hospitals for all three conditions: AMI, 20.3% vs. 19.8% (p value< 0.001); heart failure, 25.2% vs. 24.2% (p-value< 0.001); pneumonia, 18.7% vs. 18.1% (p-value< 0.001). Beginning in 2012, readmission rates declined similarly in both hospital groups for all three cohorts. Based on difference-in-differences analysis, HRRP was associated with similar change in the readmissions rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals for AMI and heart failure. For the pneumonia cohort, we found a larger reduction (0.23%; p < 0.001) in safety-net hospitals. The frequency of readmissions penalty was higher among safety-net hospitals. The proportion of hospitals penalized during all four post-HRRP years was 72% among safety-net and 59% among non-safety-net hospitals.ConclusionsOur results lend support to the concerns of disproportionately higher risk of performance-based penalty on safety-net hospitals.

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.

Project description:BackgroundMedicare requires that hospitals report on their adherence to the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1).ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of SEP-1 on treatment patterns and patient outcomes.DesignLongitudinal study of hospitals using repeated cross-sectional cohorts of patients.Setting11 hospitals within an integrated health system.Patients54 225 encounters between January 2013 and December 2017 for adults with sepsis who were hospitalized through the emergency department.InterventionOnset of the SEP-1 reporting requirement in October 2015.MeasurementsChanges in SEP-1-targeted processes, including antibiotic administration, lactate measurement, and fluid administration at 3 hours from sepsis onset; repeated lactate and vasopressor administration for hypotension within 6 hours of sepsis onset; and sepsis outcomes, including risk-adjusted intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital mortality, and home discharge among survivors.ResultsTwo years after its implementation, SEP-1 was associated with variable changes in process measures, with the greatest effect being an increase in lactate measurement within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 23.7 percentage points [95% CI, 20.7 to 26.7 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There were small increases in antibiotic administration (absolute increase, 4.7 percentage points [CI, 1.9 to 7.6 percentage points]; P = 0.001) and fluid administration of 30 mL/kg of body weight within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 3.4 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 5.2 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There was no change in vasopressor administration. There was a small increase in ICU admissions (absolute increase, 2.0 percentage points [CI, 0 to 4.0 percentage points]; P = 0.055) and no changes in mortality (absolute change, 0.1 percentage points [CI, -0.9 to 1.1 percentage points]; P = 0.87) or discharge to home.LimitationData are from a single health system.ConclusionImplementation of the SEP-1 mandatory reporting program was associated with variable changes in process measures, without improvements in clinical outcomes. Revising the measure may optimize its future effect.Primary funding sourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Many septic patients receive care that fails the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' SEP-1 measure, but it is unclear whether this reflects meaningful lapses in care, differences in clinical characteristics, or excessive rigidity of the "all-or-nothing" measure. We compared outcomes in cases that passed versus failed SEP-1 during the first 2 years after the measure was implemented. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Seven U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS:Adult patients included in SEP-1 reporting between October 2015 and September 2017. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Of 851 sepsis cases in the cohort, 281 (33%) passed SEP-1 and 570 (67%) failed. SEP-1 failures had higher rates of septic shock (20% vs 9%; p < 0.001), hospital-onset sepsis (11% vs 4%; p = 0.001), and vague presenting symptoms (46% vs 30%; p < 0.001). The most common reasons for failure were omission of 3- and 6-hour lactate measurements (228/570 failures, 40%). Only 86 of 570 failures (15.1%) had greater than 3-hour delays until broad-spectrum antibiotics. Cases that failed SEP-1 had higher in-hospital mortality rates (18.4% vs 11.0%; odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.19-2.80; p = 0.006), but this association was no longer significant after adjusting for differences in clinical characteristics and severity of illness (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.85-2.18; p = 0.205). Delays of greater than 3 hours until antibiotics were significantly associated with death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.04-3.62; p = 0.038), whereas failing SEP-1 for any other reason was not (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.70-1.72; p = 0.674). CONCLUSIONS:Crude mortality rates were higher in sepsis cases that failed versus passed SEP-1, but there was no difference after adjusting for clinical characteristics and severity of illness. Delays in antibiotic administration were associated with higher mortality but only accounted for a small fraction of SEP-1 failures. SEP-1 may not clearly differentiate between high- and low-quality care, and detailed risk adjustment is necessary to properly interpret associations between SEP-1 compliance and mortality.

Project description:BackgroundThree major hospital pay for performance (P4P) programs were introduced by the Affordable Care Act and intended to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. The financial risk to hospitals associated with Medicare's P4P programs is substantial. Evidence on the positive impact of these programs, however, has been mixed, and no study has assessed their combined impact. In this study, we examined the combined impact of Medicare's P4P programs on clinical areas and populations targeted by the programs, as well as those outside their focus.MethodsWe used 2007-2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases for 14 states to identify hospital-level inpatient quality indicators (IQIs) and patient safety indicators (PSIs), by quarter and payer (Medicare vs. non-Medicare). IQIs and PSIs are standardized, evidence-based measures that can be used to track hospital quality of care and patient safety over time using hospital administrative data. The study period of 2007-2016 was selected to capture multiple years before and after introduction of program metrics. Interrupted time series was used to analyze the impact of the P4P programs on study outcomes targeted and not targeted by the programs. In sensitivity analyses, we examined the impact of these programs on care for non-Medicare patients.ResultsMedicare P4P programs were not associated with consistent improvements in targeted or non-targeted quality and safety measures. Moreover, mortality rates across targeted and untargeted conditions were generally getting worse after the introduction of Medicare's P4P programs. Trends in PSIs were extremely mixed, with five outcomes trending in an expected (improving) direction, five trending in an unexpected (deteriorating) direction, and three with insignificant changes over time. Sensitivity analyses did not substantially alter these results.ConclusionsConsistent with previous studies for individual programs, we detect minimal, if any, effect of Medicare's hospital P4P programs on quality and safety. Given the growing evidence of limited impact, the administrative cost of monitoring and enforcing penalties, and potential increase in mortality, CMS should consider redesigning their P4P programs before continuing to expand them.

Dataset Information

Sepsis quality in safety-net hospitals: An analysis of Medicare's SEP-1 performance measure.

Publications

Sepsis quality in safety-net hospitals: An analysis of Medicare's SEP-1 performance measure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets