Popescu Ioana, Nallamothu Brahmajee K, Vaughan-Sarrazin Mary S, Cram Peter
The Center for Research in Implementation of Innovative Strategies in Practice, Iowa City VA Medical Center, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Am Heart J. 2008 Jul;156(1):155-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.02.018. Epub 2008 May 27.
Supporters of specialty hospitals claim these facilities provide better patient care; however, empirical data on quality of care in specialty hospitals are limited.
We used data reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) during 2005 to 2006 to compare the quality of care of specialty cardiac hospitals, competing general hospitals and a group of top-ranked cardiac hospitals as identified by the US News & World Report's list of "America's best cardiac hospitals" for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF). The main outcome was hospital compliance with CMS performance measures, expressed as the percentage of eligible patients with AMI or HF who received guidelines-based treatment.
The mean compliance for all 179 hospitals was 95% for AMI measures, 91% for HF measures, and 94% for all cardiac care (AMI plus HF measures). Specialty hospitals' compliance with AMI and HF guidelines (95.2% and 91.3%) was similar to that of competing general hospitals (94.7% and 90.5%), whereas top-ranked cardiac hospitals compliance with both AMI and CHF measures (96.8% and 94.1%) was higher (P < .001). In supplemental analyses, we found that 40% of specialty hospitals were ranked in the top quartile of all 179 hospitals, as compared with 22.9% of top-ranked cardiac hospitals. Conversely, 25% specialty hospitals were in the lowest quartile, as compared to 7% of top-ranked cardiac hospitals.
Quality of care in specialty cardiac hospitals is similar to quality in competing general hospitals and top-ranked cardiac care hospitals, as measured by compliance with AMI and HF performance indicators. Quality of care appears to be slightly better for top-ranked cardiac hospitals as compared to general hospitals, but the overall performance of all hospitals is high.
专科医院的支持者称这些机构能提供更好的患者护理;然而,关于专科医院护理质量的实证数据有限。
我们使用了2005年至2006年期间向医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)报告的数据,来比较专科心脏病医院、与之竞争的综合医院以及被《美国新闻与世界报道》评选为“美国最佳心脏病医院”的一组顶级心脏病医院在急性心肌梗死(AMI)和心力衰竭(HF)方面的护理质量。主要结果是医院对CMS绩效指标的依从性,以接受基于指南治疗的AMI或HF合格患者的百分比表示。
所有179家医院在AMI指标方面的平均依从率为95%,HF指标方面为91%,所有心脏护理(AMI加HF指标)方面为94%。专科医院对AMI和HF指南的依从性(95.2%和91.3%)与竞争的综合医院(94.7%和90.5%)相似,而顶级心脏病医院对AMI和CHF指标的依从性(96.8%和94.1%)更高(P <.001)。在补充分析中,我们发现40%的专科医院在所有179家医院中排名前四分之一,相比之下,顶级心脏病医院的这一比例为22.9%。相反,25%的专科医院处于最低四分位,而顶级心脏病医院的这一比例为7%。
通过对AMI和HF绩效指标的依从性衡量,专科心脏病医院的护理质量与竞争的综合医院以及顶级心脏病护理医院的质量相似。与综合医院相比,顶级心脏病医院的护理质量似乎略好,但所有医院的总体表现都很高。