Mortality Rates, Monitoring Programs, and the Quality of Care

1989 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-75
Author(s):  
Elliott S. Fisher
2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
AJ Cockbain ◽  
M Carolan ◽  
D Berridge ◽  
GJ Toogood

Since the seminal work of Jarman et al in 1999, standardised mortality ratios have been published for all English hospitals in the NHS. These have been widely digested by the media, clinicians, managers and the public alike, with differences in mortality rates taken to represent variation in the overall quality of care provided by institutions. The appetite for comparative data has continued and a wealth of performance data is now made publicly available, be it from the department of Health, the Care Quality Commission, professional bodies maintaining their own specialty registries or from third-party agencies such as dr Foster.


2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Goodacre ◽  
Mike Campbell ◽  
Angela Carter

Author(s):  
Rebecca Vigen ◽  
P M Ho ◽  
Philip G Jones ◽  
John A Spertus ◽  
Suzanne V Arnold ◽  
...  

Background: Studies demonstrating variation in hospital quality of care using longitudinal outcomes have been limited in the amount of clinical data used to stratify patients’ risks and have not examined health status outcomes. We sought to describe hospital-level variation in risk-adjusted health status and mortality in the year following myocardial infarction (MI) and describe the extent to which hospital quality of care explains this variation. Methods: 4,316 patients from the TRIUMPH registry, a prospective cohort study of MI patients at 24 hospitals, were included for analysis. Using hierarchical models, we described the hospital-level variation in angina (yes/no) and 1-year mortality rates. We then added hospital quality of care measures for MI applicable to the time period studied (ASA and beta blockers within 24 hours of arrival and at discharge, ACE/ARB at discharge, thrombolytics within 30 minutes, PCI within 90 minutes, and smoking cessation instructions at discharge) to these models to determine if hospital variation in one-year mortality and angina were explained by index MI quality of care. Results: The mortality rate at one year was 6.2% and the incidence of angina at one year was 23.0%. Unadjusted hospital-level 1-year mortality ranged from 0% to 10.8% and unadjusted presence of angina ranged from 9.3% to 66.7%. Statistically significant hospital-level variation in one-year mortality and angina was observed, with risk-adjusted mortality rates ranging from 5% to 8.3% (p<0.0001) and risk-adjusted angina rates ranging from 17.6% to 31.9% (p<0.0001). In-hospital quality of care measures did not attenuate hospital-level variation in mortality or angina (Figure 1). Conclusions: Hospital-level variation in 1-year mortality and angina was observed among the 24 hospitals participating in this MI registry. However, this variation was not explained by in-hospital MI performance measures. Future studies should assess care delivery factors that impact longitudinal outcomes following MI.


2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ansgar Wübker ◽  
Christiane Wuckel

Abstract What is the impact of private for-profit (PfP) hospital ownership on costs and quality of care? In light of a substantial and increasing share of PfP hospitals in many hospital markets like the USA or Germany, this is an important question. We estimate the effect of PfP ownership on hospital 30-day- and 1-year-mortality outcomes and hospital costs by focusing on heart attacks and pneumonia, two very common conditions in healthcare markets. We use rich administrative hospital data from Germany for the years 2006–2015. Applying differential distance as instrument for hospital choice, we imitate randomization of patients into PfP hospitals. Our results suggest that PfP hospitals have no higher mortality rates for heart attack treatment than public ones. For pneumonia patients, we even find lower 30-day-mortality rates of PfP hospitals compared to public hospitals. Finally, we show that PfP hospitals have higher hospital costs than public or private not-for-profit hospitals for both conditions.


ASHA Leader ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Dennis Hampton
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document