Effects of the CMS’ Public Reporting Program for Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities on Targeted and Nontargeted Safety: Differences Between For-Profits and Nonprofits

2021 ◽  
pp. 107755872199892
Author(s):  
Morgan C. Shields

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program in 2012, which publicly reports facilities’ performance on restraint and seclusion (R-S) measures. Using data from Massachusetts, we examined whether nonprofits and for-profits responded differently to the program on targeted indicators, and if the program had a differential spillover effect on nontargeted indicators of quality by ownership. Episodes of R-S (targeted), complaints (nontargeted), and discharges were obtained for 2008-2017 through public records requests to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Using difference-in-differences estimators, we found no differential changes in R-S between for-profits and nonprofits. However, for-profits had larger increases in overall complaints, safety-related complaints, abuse-related complaints, and R-S-related complaints compared with nonprofits. This is the first study to examine the effects of a national public reporting program among psychiatric facilities on nontargeted measures. Researchers and policymakers should further scrutinize intended and unintended consequences of performance-reporting programs.

2016 ◽  
pp. ntw386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane Carrillo ◽  
Niaman Nazir ◽  
Eric Howser ◽  
Lisa Shenkman ◽  
Melinda Laxson ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Gregory J Dehmer ◽  

Public reporting of healthcare data is not a new concept. This initiative continues to proliferate as consumers and other stakeholders seek information on the quality and outcomes of care. Furthermore, mandates for the development of additional public reporting efforts are included in several new healthcare legislations such as the Affordable Care Act. Many current reporting programs rely heavily on administrative data as a surrogate for true clinical data, but this approach has well-defined limitations. Clinical data are traditionally more difficult and costly to collect, but more accurately reflect the clinical status of the patient, thus enhancing validity of the quality metrics and the reporting program. Several professional organizations have published policy statements articulating the main principles that should establish the foundation for public reporting programs in the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 861-862
Author(s):  
Z. Izadi ◽  
T. Johansson ◽  
J. LI ◽  
G. Schmajuk ◽  
J. Yazdany

Background:The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry was developed by the ACR to help rheumatologists improve quality of care and meet federal reporting requirements. In the current quality program administered by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, rheumatologists are scored on quality measures, and performance is tied to financial incentives or penalties. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-specific quality measures can only be submitted through RISE to federal programs.Objectives:This study used data from the RISE registry to investigate rheumatologists’ federal reporting patterns on five RA-specific quality measures in 2018 and investigated the effect of practice characteristics on federal reporting of these measures.Methods:We analyzed data on all rheumatologists who continuously participated in RISE between Jan 2017 to Dec 2018 and who had patients eligible for at least one RA-specific measure. Five measures were examined: tuberculosis screening before biologic use, disease activity assessment, functional status assessment, assessment and classification of disease prognosis, and glucocorticoid management. We assessed whether or not rheumatologists reported specific quality measures via RISE. We investigated the effect of practice characteristics (practice structure; number of providers; geographic region) on the likelihood of reporting using adjusted analyses that controlled for measure performance (performance in 2018; change in performance from 2017; and performance relative to national average performance). Analyses accounted for clustering by practice.Results:Data from 799 providers from 207 practices managing 213,757 RA patients was examined. The most common practice structure was a single-specialty group practice (53%), followed by solo (28%) and multi-specialty group practice (12%). Most providers (73%) had patients eligible for all five RA quality measures. Federal reporting of quality measures through RISE varied significantly by provider, ranging from no reporting (60%) to reporting all eligible RA measures (12.2%). Reporting through RISE also varied significantly by quality measure and was highest for functional status assessment (36%) and lowest for assessment and classification of disease prognosis (20%). Small practices (1-4 providers) were more likely to report all eligible RA quality measures compared to larger practices (21%, 6%; p<0.001). In adjusted analyses, solo practices were more likely than single-specialty group practices to report RA measures (42%, 31%; p<0.027) while multispecialty group practices were less likely (18%, 31%; p<0.001). Additionally, higher performance in 2018 and performance ≥ the national average performance was associated with federal reporting of the measures through RISE (p≤0.004).Conclusion:Forty percent of U.S. rheumatologists participating in RISE used the registry for federal quality reporting. Physicians using RISE for reporting were disproportionately in small and solo practices, suggesting that the registry is fulfilling an important role in helping these practices participate in national quality reporting programs. Supporting small practices is especially important given the workforce shortages in rheumatology. We observed that practices reporting through RISE had higher measure performance than other participating practices, which suggests that the registry is facilitating quality improvement. Studies are ongoing to further investigate the impact of federal quality reporting programs and RISE participation on the quality of rheumatologic care in the United States.Disclaimer: This data was supported by the ACR’s RISE Registry. However, the views expressed represent those of the authors, not necessarily those of the ACR.Disclosure of Interests:Zara Izadi: None declared, Tracy Johansson: None declared, Jing Li: None declared, Gabriela Schmajuk Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Jinoos Yazdany Grant/research support from: Pfizer


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor A. Nichols ◽  
Sophie Robert ◽  
David J. Taber ◽  
Jeffrey Cluver

Abstract Introduction Limited evidence exists evaluating the impact of gabapentin in conjunction with benzodiazepines for the management of alcohol withdrawal. A review of outcomes associated with combination gabapentin and benzodiazepine therapy may illuminate new therapeutic uses in clinical practice. Methods This retrospective study evaluated the impact of gabapentin on as-needed use of benzodiazepines in inpatients being treated for acute alcohol withdrawal. The treatment cohort consisted of patients prescribed gabapentin while on a symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol. The control cohort consisted of patients on symptom-triggered alcohol withdrawal protocol without concurrent gabapentin use. Secondary objectives included length of hospital stay, duration on alcohol withdrawal protocol, frequency of complicated withdrawal, and use of additionally prescribed as-needed or scheduled benzodiazepines. Results The gabapentin cohort was on the alcohol withdrawal protocol for a similar duration, compared with the control cohort (median of 4 [interquartile range: 2,6] days vs 3 [2,4] days, P = .09, respectively). Similarly, the gabapentin cohort required a median of 1 [1,2] benzodiazepine dose for alcohol withdrawal symptoms compared with a median of 1 [1,2] dose in the control cohort, P = .89. No significant difference was found between cohorts for as-needed and scheduled benzodiazepine use. Length of stay in hospital was similar between groups. Discussion These results suggest that gabapentin use, in conjunction with benzodiazepines, impacts neither the time on alcohol withdrawal protocol or the number of benzodiazepine doses required for withdrawal. Larger, prospective studies are needed to detect if gabapentin alters benzodiazepine usage and to better elucidate gabapentin's role in acute alcohol withdrawal.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. e237720
Author(s):  
Firas El-Baba ◽  
Danielle Gabe ◽  
Allan Frank

A 33-year-old man with paranoid schizophrenia and a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt was sent to our institution from an inpatient psychiatric facility due to concerns for the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Per the facility, the patient had a fever and non-productive cough. On admission, the patient was afebrile and lacked subjective symptoms. A RNA reverse transcriptase PCR (RNA RT-PCR) test for COVID-19 was positive. A chest X-ray contained a small patchy opacity in the right middle lobe and another in the retrocardiac region concerning for pneumonia. Inflammatory markers were mildly elevated. He remained COVID-19 positive and asymptomatic for 36 days. This case details one asymptomatic carrier’s course with persistently positive COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs. It demonstrates that a VP shunt could be a possible predisposition for prolonged viral shedding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document