Dataset Information

Evaluating national trends in outcomes after implementation of a star rating system: Results from dialysis facility compare.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine which factors are driving improvement in the Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) star ratings and to test whether nonclinical facility characteristics are associated with observed longitudinal changes in the star ratings.

Data sources

Data were collected from eligible patients in over 6,000 Medicare-certified dialysis facilities from three annual star rating and individual measure updates, publicly released on DFC in October 2015, October 2016, and April 2018.

Study design

Changes in the star rating and individual quality measures were investigated across three public data releases. Year-to-year changes in the star ratings were linked to facility characteristics, adjusting for baseline differences in quality measure performance.

Data collection

Data from publicly reported quality measures, including standardized mortality, hospitalization, and transfusion ratios, dialysis adequacy, type of vascular access for dialysis, and management of mineral and bone disease, were extracted from annual DFC data releases.

Principal findings

The proportion of four- and five-star facilities increased from 30.0% to 53.4% between October 2015 and April 2018. Quality improvement was driven by the domain of care containing the dialysis adequacy and hypercalcemia measures. Additionally, independently owned facilities and facilities belonging to smaller dialysis organizations had significantly lower odds of year-to-year improvement than facilities belonging to either of the two large dialysis organizations (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.736, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.631-0.856 and OR: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.723-0.879, respectively).

Conclusions

The percentage of four- and five-star facilities has increased markedly over a three-year time period. These changes were driven by improvement in the specific quality measures that may be most directly under the control of the dialysis facility.

SUBMITTER: Salerno S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7839641 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStar Rating Assessment (SRA) was initiated in 2015 in Tanzania aiming at improving the quality of services provided in Primary Healthcare (PHC) facilities. Social accountability (SA) is among the 12 assessment areas of SRA tools. We aimed to assess the SA performance and its predictors among PHC facilities in Tanzania based on findings of a nationwide reassessment conducted in 2017/18.MethodsWe used the SRA database with results of 2017/2018 to perform a cross-sectional secondary data analysis on SA dataset. We used proportions to determine the performance of the following five SA indicators: functional committees/boards, display of information on available resources, addressing local concerns, health workers' engagement with local community, and involvement of community in facility planning process. A facility needed four indicators to be qualified as socially accountable. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to determine facilities characteristics associated with SA, namely location (urban or rural), ownership (private or public) and level of service (hospital, health centre or dispensary).ResultsWe included a total of 3,032 PHC facilities of which majority were dispensaries (86.4%), public-owned (76.3%), and located in rural areas (76.0%). On average, 30.4% of the facilities were socially accountable; 72.0% engaged with local communities; and 65.5% involved communities in facility planning process. Nevertheless, as few as 22.5% had functional Health Committees/Boards. A facility was likely to be socially-accountable if public-owned [AOR 5.92; CI: 4.48-7.82, p = 0.001], based in urban areas [AOR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.01-1.53, p = 0.038] or operates at a level higher than Dispensaries (Health centre or Hospital levels).ConclusionMost of the Tanzanian PHC facilities are not socially accountable and therefore much effort in improving the situation should be done. The efforts should target the lower-level facilities, private-owned and rural-based PHC facilities. Regional authorities must capacitate facility committees/boards and ensure guidelines on SA are followed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. METHODS:National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes. RESULTS:This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P?<?.001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS:In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Project description:BackgroundThe Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.MethodsWe describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal's policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.DiscussionThe TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation. Research materials are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/txyr3/ .