Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jul 8;173(13):1186-95. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1026.
National efforts to measure hospital performance in treating cardiac arrest have focused on case survival, with the hope of improving survival after cardiac arrest. However, it is plausible that hospitals with high case-survival rates do a poor job of preventing cardiac arrests in the first place.
To describe the association between inpatient cardiac arrest incidence and survival rates.
Within a large, national registry, we identified hospitals with at least 50 adult in-hospital cardiac arrest cases between January 1, 2000, and November 30, 2009. We used multivariable hierarchical regression to evaluate the correlation between a hospital's cardiac arrest incidence rate and its case-survival rate after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics.
The correlation between a hospital's incidence rate and case-survival rate for cardiac arrest.
Of 102,153 cases at 358 hospitals, the median hospital cardiac arrest incidence rate was 4.02 per 1000 admissions (interquartile range, 2.95-5.65 per 1000 admissions), and the median hospital case-survival rate was 18.8% (interquartile range, 14.5%-22.6%). In crude analyses, hospitals with higher case-survival rates also had lower cardiac arrest incidence (r, -0.16; P = .003). This relationship persisted after adjusting for patient characteristics (r, -0.15; P = .004). After adjusting for potential mediators of this relationship (ie, hospital characteristics), the relationship between incidence and case survival was attenuated (r, -0.07; P = .18). The one modifiable hospital factor that most attenuated this relationship was a hospital's nurse-to-bed ratio (r, -0.12; P = .03).
Hospitals with exceptional rates of survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest are also better at preventing cardiac arrests, even after adjusting for patient case mix. This relationship is partially mediated by measured hospital attributes. Performance measures focused on case-survival rates seem an appropriate first step in quality measurement for in-hospital cardiac arrest.
国家努力衡量医院在治疗心脏骤停方面的表现,重点是生存率,希望提高心脏骤停后的生存率。然而,情况很可能是,那些生存率高的医院首先在预防心脏骤停方面做得很差。
描述住院患者心脏骤停发生率与生存率之间的关系。
在一个大型的全国性登记处内,我们确定了 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2009 年 11 月 30 日期间至少有 50 例成人院内心脏骤停病例的医院。我们使用多变量层次回归来评估在调整患者和医院特征后,医院心脏骤停发生率与病例存活率之间的相关性。
医院心脏骤停发生率与病例存活率之间的相关性。
在 358 家医院的 102153 例病例中,医院心脏骤停发生率中位数为 4.02/1000 人次(四分位距,2.95-5.65/1000 人次),医院病例存活率中位数为 18.8%(四分位距,14.5%-22.6%)。在未调整分析中,生存率较高的医院心脏骤停发生率也较低(r,-0.16;P =.003)。在调整患者特征后,这种关系仍然存在(r,-0.15;P =.004)。在调整这种关系的潜在中介因素(即医院特征)后,发病率与病例生存率之间的关系减弱(r,-0.07;P =.18)。最能减弱这种关系的一个可调节的医院因素是医院的护士与床位比(r,-0.12;P =.03)。
院内心脏骤停生存率异常高的医院在预防心脏骤停方面也做得更好,即使在调整了患者病例组合后也是如此。这种关系部分由测量的医院属性介导。以生存率为重点的绩效指标似乎是衡量院内心脏骤停质量的适当第一步。