Samadashvili Zaza, Hannan Edward L, Cozzens Kimberly, Walford Gary, Jacobs Alice K, Berger Peter B, Holmes David R, Venditti Ferdinand J, Curtis Jeptha
*University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY †Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD ‡Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA §Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA ∥Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN ¶Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY #Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Med Care. 2015 Mar;53(3):245-52. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000305.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) to assess quality of care for hospitals that treat acute myocardial infarction patients, and the outcomes for inpatient transfers are attributed to transferring hospitals. However, emergency department (ED) transfers are currently ignored and therefore attributed to receiving hospitals.
New York State administrative data were used to develop a statistical model similar to the one used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to risk-adjust hospital 30-day mortality rates. RSMRs were calculated and outliers were identified when ED transfers were attributed to: (1) the transferring hospital and (2) the receiving hospital. Differences in hospital outlier status and RSMR tertile between the 2 attribution methods were noted for hospitals performing and not performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs).
Although both methods of attribution identified 3 high outlier non-PCI hospitals, only 2 of those hospitals were identified by both methods, and each method identified a different hospital as a third outlier. Also, when transfers were attributed to the referring hospital, 1 non-PCI hospital was identified as a low outlier, and no non-PCI hospitals were identified as a low outlier with the other attribution method. About one sixth of all hospitals changed their tertile status. Most PCI hospitals (89%) that changed status moved to a higher (worse RSMR) tertile, whereas the majority of non-PCI hospitals (68%) that changed status were moved to a lower (better) RSMR tertile when ED transfers were attributed to the referring hospital.
Hospital quality assessments for acute myocardial infarction are affected by whether ED transfers are assigned to the transferring or receiving hospital. The pros and cons of this choice should be considered.
医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心公开报告风险标准化死亡率(RSMRs),以评估治疗急性心肌梗死患者的医院的医疗质量,住院患者转院的结果归因于转出医院。然而,急诊科(ED)转院目前被忽视,因此归因于接收医院。
使用纽约州行政数据开发一个统计模型,类似于医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心用于对医院30天死亡率进行风险调整的模型。计算RSMRs,并在将ED转院归因于:(1)转出医院和(2)接收医院时识别异常值。记录了进行和未进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的医院在两种归因方法之间的医院异常值状态和RSMR三分位数的差异。
尽管两种归因方法都识别出3家高异常值非PCI医院,但只有2家医院在两种方法中都被识别出来,并且每种方法都将不同的医院识别为第三个异常值。此外,当转院归因于转诊医院时,1家非PCI医院被识别为低异常值,而在另一种归因方法中没有非PCI医院被识别为低异常值。所有医院中约六分之一改变了其三分位数状态。当ED转院归因于转诊医院时,大多数状态改变的PCI医院(89%)转移到了更高(RSMR更差)的三分位数,而大多数状态改变的非PCI医院(68%)转移到了更低(更好)的RSMR三分位数。
急性心肌梗死的医院质量评估受ED转院是分配给转出医院还是接收医院的影响。应考虑这种选择的利弊。