Dataset Information

Evaluating the Costs and Outcomes of Hospital Nursing Resources: a Matched Cohort Study of Patients with Common Medical Conditions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear.

Objective

To determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources.

Design

Matched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals.

Patients

A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status.

Main measures

Better (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs.

Key results

Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost.

Conclusions

Medicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

SUBMITTER: Lasater KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458128 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The association between hospital volume and the death rate for patients who are hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia remains unclear. It is also not known whether a volume threshold for such an association exists.We conducted cross-sectional analyses of data from Medicare administrative claims for all fee-for-service beneficiaries who were hospitalized between 2004 and 2006 in acute care hospitals in the United States for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. Using hierarchical logistic-regression models for each condition, we estimated the change in the odds of death within 30 days associated with an increase of 100 patients in the annual hospital volume. Analyses were adjusted for patients' risk factors and hospital characteristics. Bootstrapping procedures were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals to identify the condition-specific volume thresholds above which an increased volume was not associated with reduced mortality.There were 734,972 hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction in 4128 hospitals, 1,324,287 for heart failure in 4679 hospitals, and 1,418,252 for pneumonia in 4673 hospitals. An increased hospital volume was associated with reduced 30-day mortality for all conditions (P<0.001 for all comparisons). For each condition, the association between volume and outcome was attenuated as the hospital's volume increased. For acute myocardial infarction, once the annual volume reached 610 patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 539 to 679), an increase in the hospital volume by 100 patients was no longer significantly associated with reduced odds of death. The volume threshold was 500 patients (95% CI, 433 to 566) for heart failure and 210 patients (95% CI, 142 to 284) for pneumonia.Admission to higher-volume hospitals was associated with a reduction in mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, although there was a volume threshold above which an increased condition-specific hospital volume was no longer significantly associated with reduced mortality.

Project description:BackgroundPrivate hospitals expanded rapidly in China since 2009 following its national health reform encouraging private investment in the hospital sector. Despite long-standing debates over the performance of different types of hospitals, empirical evidence under the context of developing countries remains scant. We investigated the disparities in health care quality and medical expenses among public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit hospitals.MethodsA total of 64,171 inpatients (51,933 for pneumonia (PNA), 9,022 for heart failure (HF) and 3,216 for acute myocardial infarction (AMI)) who were admitted to 528 secondary hospitals in Sichuan province, China, during the fourth quarters of 2016, 2017, and 2018 were selected for this study. Multilevel logistic regressions and multilevel linear regressions were utilized to assess the relationship between hospital ownership types and in-hospital mortality, as well as medical expenses for PNA, HF, and AMI, after adjusting for relevant hospital and patient characteristics, respectively.ResultsThe private not-for-profit (adjusted OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.08, 2.64) and for-profit (adjusted OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.06, 2.62) hospitals showed higher in-hospital mortality than the public ones for PNA, but not for AMI and HF. No significant differences were found in medical expenses across hospital ownership types for AMI, but the private not-for-profit was associated with 9% higher medical expenses for treating HF, while private not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals were associated with 10% and 11% higher medical expenses for treating PNA than the public hospitals. No differences were found between the private not-for-profit and private for-profit hospitals both in in-hospital mortality and medical expenses across the three conditions.ConclusionThe public hospitals had at least equal or even higher healthcare quality and lower medical expenses than the private ones in China, while private not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals had similar performances in these aspects. Our results added evidences on hospitals' performances among different ownership types under China's context, which has great potential to inform the optimization of healthcare systems implemented among developing countries confronted with similar challenges.

Project description:BackgroundTeaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear.ObjectiveCompare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics.DesignMedicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios < 0.05).ParticipantsForty-three thousand nine hundred ninety pairs of patients (one from a major teaching hospital and one from a non-teaching hospital) admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 84,985 pairs admitted for heart failure (HF), and 74,947 pairs admitted for pneumonia (PNA).ExposureTreatment at major teaching hospitals versus non-teaching hospitals.Main measuresThirty-day all-cause mortality, readmissions, ICU utilization, costs, payments, and value expressed as extra cost for a 1% improvement in survival.Key resultsThirty-day mortality was lower in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (10.7% versus 12.0%, difference = - 1.3%, P < 0.0001). The paired cost difference (teaching - non-teaching) was $273 (P < 0.0001), yielding $211 per 1% mortality improvement. For the quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (24.6% versus 27.6%, difference = - 3.0%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $1289 (P < 0.0001), yielding $427 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Readmissions and ICU utilization were lower in teaching hospitals (both P < 0.0001), but length of stay was longer (5.5 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, individual results for AMI, HF, and PNA showed similar findings as in the combined results.Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare patients admitted for common medical conditions, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used.

Project description:BackgroundThe Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) has been implemented on various claims and electronic health record (EHR) databases, but has not been applied to a hospital transactional database. This study addresses the implementation of the OMOP CDM on the U.S. Premier Hospital database.MethodsWe designed and implemented an extract, transform, load (ETL) process to convert the Premier hospital database into the OMOP CDM. Standard charge codes in Premier were mapped between the OMOP version 4.0 Vocabulary and standard charge descriptions. Visit logic was added to impute the visit dates. We tested the conversion by replicating a published study using the raw and transformed databases. The Premier hospital database was compared to a claims database, in regard to prevalence of disease.FindingsThe data transformed into the CDM resulted in 1% of the data being discarded due to data errors in the raw data. A total of 91.4% of Premier standard charge codes were mapped successfully to a standard vocabulary. The results of the replication study resulted in a similar distribution of patient characteristics. The comparison to the claims data yields notable similarities and differences amongst conditions represented in both databases.DiscussionThe transformation of the Premier database into the OMOP CDM version 4.0 adds value in conducting analyses due to successful mapping of the drugs and procedures. The addition of visit logic gives ordinality to drugs and procedures that wasn't present prior to the transformation. Comparing conditions in Premier against a claims database can provide an understanding about Premier's potential use in pharmacoepidemiology studies that are traditionally conducted via claims databases.Conclusion and next stepsThe conversion of the Premier database into the OMOP CDM 4.0 was completed successfully. The next steps include refinement of vocabularies and mappings and continual maintenance of the transformed CDM.