Division of Health Services and Outcomes Research, Biostatistics and Epidemiology Core, Children's Mercy Kansas City, and Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City.
Psychiatr Serv. 2020 Sep 1;71(9):893-898. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000011. Epub 2020 Jun 3.
This study examined variability among U.S. hospitals in rates of seclusion and physical restraint, including the effects of hospital type and ownership, as reported on Hospital Compare. Broader aims were to highlight the wide variability in use of these measures, the need for improved data reporting, and the data source itself, which deserves further development and more attention from regulatory agencies, researchers, and others.
Facility-level data from Hospital Compare for 2013-2017 were analyzed. Rates of seclusion and restraint were computed by aggregating across study years and compared by hospital type and ownership. Rates were also examined by year.
Data cleaning revealed hundreds of errors. The final sample comprised 7,416 seclusion rates and 7,398 restraint rates from 1,642 hospitals. For both acute care and psychiatric hospitals, marked differences were noted in seclusion and restraint rates above the median, with for-profit hospitals reporting markedly lower rates compared with government and nonprofit hospitals. Rates above the median declined substantially during the study period. Although 67% of hospitals reported comparably low rates of seclusion (≤0.09 hours per 1,000 patient-hours) and restraint (≤0.15 hours per 1,000 patient-hours), 10% of hospitals reported rates at least five to 10 times higher.
Despite some progress, many hospitals continue to report very high rates of seclusion and restraint. It is unlikely that this variability can be fully accounted for by patient-level factors. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data reporting should be expanded to include frequency of seclusion and restraint use and duration of episodes.
本研究考察了美国医院在隔离和身体约束率方面的差异,包括医院类型和所有权的影响,这些数据均来自 Hospital Compare。更广泛的目标是强调这些措施使用的广泛差异、改进数据报告的必要性以及数据来源本身,该数据来源值得监管机构、研究人员和其他人员进一步开发和更多关注。
分析了 2013-2017 年 Hospital Compare 的设施级别数据。通过汇总研究年度来计算隔离和约束的比率,并按医院类型和所有权进行比较。还按年度检查了这些比率。
数据清理发现了数百个错误。最终样本包括来自 1642 家医院的 7416 例隔离率和 7398 例约束率。对于急性护理和精神病医院,隔离和约束率明显高于中位数,营利性医院报告的比率明显低于政府和非营利性医院。在研究期间,比率显著下降。尽管 67%的医院报告的隔离(≤0.09 小时/每 1000 患者小时)和约束(≤0.15 小时/每 1000 患者小时)率较低,但仍有 10%的医院报告的比率至少高出五到十倍。
尽管取得了一些进展,但许多医院仍报告隔离和约束率很高。患者水平的因素不太可能完全解释这种差异。医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的数据报告应扩大到包括隔离和约束使用频率以及事件持续时间。