Huerta Timothy R, Ford Eric W, Peterson Lori T, Brigham Keith H
Health Organization Management, Rawls College of Business Administration, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Health Care Manage Rev. 2008 Oct-Dec;33(4):341-9. doi: 10.1097/01.HCM.0000318770.82642.c6.
To assess the relationship between hospitals' X-inefficiency levels and overall care quality based on the National Quality Forum's 27 safe practices score and to improve the analytic strategy for assessing X-inefficiency.
The 2005 versions of the American Hospital Association and Leapfrog Group's annual surveys were the basis of the study. Additional case mix indices and market variables were drawn from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data sources and the Area Resource File. Data envelopment analysis was used to determine hospitals' X-inefficiency scores relative to their market-level competitors. Regression was used to assess the relationship between X-inefficiency and quality, controlling for organizational and market characteristics. Expenses (total and labor expenditures), case-mix-adjusted admissions, length of stay, and licensed beds defined the X-inefficiency function. The overall National Quality Forum's safe practice score, health maintenance organization penetration, market share, and teaching status served as independent control variables in the regression.
The National Quality Forum's safe practice scores are significantly and positively correlated to hospital X-inefficiency levels (beta = .105, p < or = .05). The analysis of the value proposition had very good explanatory power (adjusted R(2) = .414; p < or = .001; df = 7, 265). Contrary to earlier findings, health maintenance organization penetration and being a teaching hospital were positively related to X-inefficiency. Similar with others' findings, greater market share and for-profit ownership were negatively associated with X-inefficiency.
Measurement of overall hospital quality is improving but can still be made better. Nevertheless, the National Quality Forum's measure is significantly related to efficiency and could be used to create differential pay-for-performance programs. A market-segmented analytic strategy for studying hospitals' efficiency yields results with a high degree of explanatory power.
基于国家质量论坛的27项安全实践得分,评估医院X低效率水平与整体护理质量之间的关系,并改进评估X低效率的分析策略。
本研究以2005年版美国医院协会和“跨越质量鸿沟”组织的年度调查为基础。其他病例组合指数和市场变量取自医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的数据来源以及区域资源文件。数据包络分析用于确定医院相对于其市场层面竞争对手的X低效率得分。回归分析用于评估X低效率与质量之间的关系,并控制组织和市场特征。费用(总支出和劳动力支出)、病例组合调整后的入院人数、住院时间和许可床位定义了X低效率函数。国家质量论坛的总体安全实践得分、健康维护组织渗透率、市场份额和教学地位作为回归中的独立控制变量。
国家质量论坛的安全实践得分与医院X低效率水平显著正相关(β = 0.105,p ≤ 0.05)。价值主张分析具有很好的解释力(调整后的R² = 0.414;p ≤ 0.001;自由度 = 7, 265)。与早期研究结果相反,健康维护组织渗透率和作为教学医院与X低效率呈正相关。与其他研究结果类似,更大的市场份额和营利性所有权与X低效率呈负相关。
医院整体质量的衡量正在改善,但仍有提升空间。尽管如此,国家质量论坛的衡量标准与效率显著相关,可用于创建差异化的绩效薪酬计划。一种针对医院效率进行市场细分的分析策略能产生具有高度解释力的结果。