Suppr超能文献

大众媒体和基于互联网的医院质量评级能否识别出心血管手术效果更好的医院?

Do popular media and internet-based hospital quality ratings identify hospitals with better cardiovascular surgery outcomes?

机构信息

Michigan Surgical Collaborative for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5604, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Jan;210(1):87-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.09.038.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several popular media and Internet-based hospital quality rankings have become increasingly publicized as a method for patients to choose better hospitals. It is unclear whether selecting highly rated hospitals will improve outcomes after cardiovascular surgery procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

Using 2005 to 2006 Medicare data, we studied all patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass, aortic valve repair, and mitral valve repair (n = 312,813). Primary outcomes included risk-adjusted mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics and surgical acuity. We compared mortality at "Best Hospitals," according to US News and World Report and HealthGrades, with all other hospitals. We adjusted for hospital volume to determine whether hospital experience accounts for differences in mortality.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted mortality was considerably lower in US News and World Report's "Best Hospitals" for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair only (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94). Risk-adjusted mortality was considerably lower in HealthGrades' "Best Hospitals" after all 4 procedures: abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97), coronary artery bypass (OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.89), aortic valve repair (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85), and mitral valve repair (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99). Accounting for hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality was not substantially lower at the US News and World Report's "Best Hospitals," while risk-adjusted mortality was lower at HealthGrades' "Best Hospitals" after coronary artery bypass and aortic valve repair mortality rates were adjusted for hospital volume (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92 and OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Popular hospital rating systems identify high-quality hospitals for cardiovascular operations. However, patients can experience equivalent outcomes by seeking care at high-volume hospitals.

摘要

背景

一些受欢迎的媒体和基于互联网的医院质量排名已经越来越多地被宣传为患者选择更好的医院的一种方法。目前尚不清楚选择高评分的医院是否会改善心血管手术后的结果。

研究设计

使用 2005 年至 2006 年的 Medicare 数据,我们研究了所有接受腹主动脉瘤修复、冠状动脉旁路、主动脉瓣修复和二尖瓣修复的患者(n=312813)。主要结果包括调整患者特征和手术难度后的风险调整死亡率。我们比较了《美国新闻与世界报道》和 HealthGrades 中的“最佳医院”的死亡率与所有其他医院。我们调整了医院的数量,以确定医院经验是否是死亡率差异的原因。

结果

仅在腹主动脉瘤修复方面,《美国新闻与世界报道》的“最佳医院”的风险调整死亡率明显较低(比值比[OR]为 0.76;95%置信区间,0.61 至 0.94)。在 HealthGrades 的“最佳医院”中,所有 4 种手术的风险调整死亡率都明显较低:腹主动脉瘤修复(OR=0.75;95%置信区间,0.58 至 0.97)、冠状动脉旁路(OR=0.78;95%置信区间,0.68 至 0.89)、主动脉瓣修复(OR=0.71;95%置信区间,0.59 至 0.85)和二尖瓣修复(OR=0.77;95%置信区间,0.61 至 0.99)。考虑到医院的数量,《美国新闻与世界报道》的“最佳医院”的风险调整死亡率并没有明显降低,而在 HealthGrades 的“最佳医院”中,在调整了医院数量对冠状动脉旁路和主动脉瓣修复死亡率的影响后,风险调整死亡率较低(OR=0.77;95%置信区间,0.64 至 0.92 和 OR=0.81;95%置信区间,0.71 至 0.94)。

结论

流行的医院评分系统为心血管手术确定了高质量的医院。然而,患者可以通过在高容量医院寻求治疗获得同等的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验